Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals

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

Reforming the edit filter

One area of administrative work that I see almost never being done is that which involves the edit filter. The false positives page seems to be constantly backlogged; currently, there's a request from three weeks ago, and until October, there had been a request from July that had not yet been answered. Meanwhile, the edit filter requests page was not edited at all for seven years, and no requests had been made since four years before then, until a request was made on 21 August 2024, which was handled on 4 September. It seems that the main reasons for this is that there appear to be very few administrators who have either the technical knowledge or interest in this kind of work, and non-administrators who would like to help generally cannot, because only administrators can view the detailed edit filter log. I would like to present two proposals for addressing this problem, which need not necessarily be mutually exclusive: the creation of an edit filter helper user group, and the unbundling of abusefilter-log-detail from adminship.

The first proposal would create a group similar to Wikipedia's edit filter helper group, which would grant the following permissions (permissions of Wikipedia's user group are bolded):

• abusefilter-view-private - Allows users to view the content of private edit filters
• abusefilter-access-protected-vars - Allows users to view the content of edit filters with protected variables enabled
• abusefilter-log-detail - Allows users to view detailed information in the logs of public edit filters
• abusefilter-log-private - Allows users to view the logs of private edit filters

This would allow non-administrators who are (a) technically minded and want to assist in the creation of filters, (b) want to help resolve false positive reports, or (c) require access to private filters for the purpose of combating long-term abuse, to view edit filters and their logs.

The second proposal would entail granting abusefilter-log-detail to more users. This is the right that allows you to view the content of or examine edits that triggered public filters. Wikibooks appears unique among English-language Wikimedia projects in that this right is only granted to administrators, whereas on Wikipedia, Wikinews, Wiktionary, Commons, etc. it is granted to all autoconfirmed users. And on Meta, it's granted to all users! Not even just logged in ones! But if there is some special reason for why Wikibooks in particular needs to limit access to this right, perhaps it could be bundled in with the reviewer group, or, if there is one, an edit filter helper group. That is all for my proposed solutions to this problem, thank you. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:41, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry I missed this! I agree that we have a deficiency in this respect, and I'm not immediately opposed to creating a helper group for the edit filter as you described. I'll leave room for other people to weigh in as well, since this seems like a not-insignificant change to one of our primary means of combating vandalism. But, I'm not seeing any immediate red flags, especially since these proposals are already in place at other projects. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:59, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

@JJPMaster

• Oppose the first proposal. The reason is that this is not en.wikipedia, and I'm wary of "unbundling" adminship more than necessary (related example). My feeling is that such users are better off applying for limited adminship, because this is a right too sensitive to be included automatically with the reviewer group. Maybe my opinion would be different if there's significant demand for this unbundling.
• Support expanding abusefilter-log-detail - I agree that it doesn't make sense to limit this to administrators only. I'm OK with making it available to all or only autoconfirmed users.

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 16:42, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T383332

Proposal 2 has been implemented. JJP_Master (she/they) 10:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The task is now closed and resolved, and all autoconfirmed and confirmed users can see detailed edit filter log entries. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Clearer guidelines on donating copyrighted materials

I wasn't able to find specific guidelines on how to have copyrighted materials donated here, so I'm proposing that we import the contents w:Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials and w:Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission together either as page or as part of Wikibooks:Copyrights. Thoughts? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking to them is enough? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, just to clarify: You're suggesting doing something like a soft redirect? Or, are you suggesting linking to those pages from Wikibooks:Copyrights? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:17, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Linking from the copyright page on Wikibooks as some sort of "best practices". Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:16, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Book donations is yet a draft. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 22:36, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Using Wikibooks/Donating a Book to Wikibooks seems to be a better guideline. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

For whom is Wikibooks?

Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? says that materials of this website can be used in a classroom, a home-school environment, as part of a Wikiversity course, etc. As you know many languages such as Persian lack a Wikiversity. So this should not be a Wikibooks policy. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The lack of a Persian Wikiversity has no bearing on the language on that page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:33, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

It's a Wikibooks policy and must be followed at all times. Do versions of Wikibooks in different languages follow different policies? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 19:22, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

@Doostdar:

Do versions of Wikibooks in different languages follow different policies?

Yes. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:26, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

If so, a version of Wikibooks e.g. Tagalog Wikibooks may contain story books according to its policies. Is it true? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 21:28, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe this could be true—my understanding is that each project and language sets its own policies as long as they are in line with the overall foundation's requirements. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:50, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

All the projects belong to Wikimedia foundation but what (rules) makes a Wikipedia Wikipedia and makes a Wikibooks Wikibooks? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 21:43, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation has basic terms of service so a given wiki will have to abide by some baseline expectations, but the day-to-day policies and procedures are very flexible per wiki. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:07, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Ultimately, this comes down to LangCom. New language editions of an existing project are generally expected to have a similar scope to existing editions of the project. They're not required to be the exact same, but a project which deviated substantially from its original goal (like an edition of Wikinews deciding to transform itself into an encyclopedia) would likely to be struck down fairly quickly. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 23:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

So What's the difference between Wikipedia, Wikibooks and Wikiversity? Taking into consideration that the policy says Wikibooks' texts can be used in Wikiversity. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 21:26, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, Wikibooks is for textbooks, and Wikiversity is for general educational materials. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:28, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Who says this? The policy can be changed in each of these projects. If versions of Wikibooks in different languages follow different policies you can't say Wikibooks is for textbooks. Maybe you can only say that English Wikibooks is for textbooks. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is there a reason you're going down this line of inquiry? It seems like you're pointing out inconsistency/lack of clarity in scope of various WMF projects, but I don't understand what you're aiming for in this discussion. There are certainly discrepancies, inconsistencies, points of confusion, etc, across all of the WMF projects—it is a huge collaboration across many people. But, it doesn't sound like you're proposing anything in particular. Is there something in particular you're trying to accomplish at en.Wikibooks? I'm not sure we can help very much unless you elaborate on your motivations here. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course there are points of confusion across all of the WMF projects but it seems that (better to say it's clear that) these points of confusion in Wikibooks is more than any other WMF project. It's not yet clear what Wikibooks inclusion criteria is. Why it accepts recipes while are not useful for a classroom? Are game plays teachable? When an itinerary is useful for Wikivoyage and when it's useful for Wikibooks? When a page is useful for Wikiversity and when it's useful for Wikibooks while it's undoubtedly tachable? Are books like Pinyin considered a dictionary or not (As you know Wikibooks pages are not supposed to be dictionary)? Why do we have books like World Stamp Catalogue which are more similar to a collection than a teachable book?, etc. I'm proposing to define a clear-cut inclusion criteria of Wikibooks. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying—I'll address these point-by-point below:

• Regarding Wikiversity, I admit that I do not fully understand their scope, though I have reviewed the relevant pages. I can only really comment on Wikibooks (see below).
• Regarding the Wikibooks inclusion criteria, this is determined by both content and formatting. Formatting-wise, things here must be specifically formatted as a book (self-contained and well-developed with chapters)—the only exception in this respect is the Cookbook, which is a large sub-project and not a book per se. Content-wise, policy just says that books here must primarily be "instructional", but the definition of "instructional" is indeed up for interpretation. I have made my personal opinion clear in other discussions, but there is not consensus for this.
• Regarding the specific topics/books you listed: I do not personally think World Stamp Catalogue is within scope, and I cannot imagine how to bring it within scope. I think Pinyin could be developed into an instructional book based on my interpretations as linked, but I think it is currently a poor-quality book for various reasons. I do think gameplay guides can be instructional. I don't think an itinerary is instructional—I could be convinced, but frankly I don't think that's actually helpful for this discussion thread.
• I think you asking questions about what the scope is will only get you so far, since eventually we just get to where we are now—the answers we can provide may not be satisfactory to you. At a certain point, you may want to suggest what you think the scope should be. If you yourself have specific thoughts on what the Wikibooks scope should be, I would recommend elaborating them in a more topical location at Wikibooks talk:What is Wikibooks.

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, Wikibooks' scope is so far vague. In the near past, many Wikibooks language versions were small Wikis. In my opinion, in Wikibooks there's a clear difference between writer, editor and reader. Writer is a user who has many edits on a specific book. Most of writers in real world are scholars, school or university students, professors, etc. Readers who include the biggest percent of users don't have any edits or just have a few (mostly minor edits) and are consisted of university and school students. Editors and admins do edits mostly related to the website formatting. We can't define such user groups for Wikipedia. This specific grouping of users implies that Wikibooks content and structure is specific. Yet I think that it's hard to decide if a content is more suited for Wikibooks or Wikiversity as both projects host instructional materials mainly used by academia. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 21:37, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if something is getting lost in translation, but I've think we've said all we can here. If you have suggestions, I would be happy to discuss them separately. However, it doesn't look like you have concrete or actionable suggestions, and I don't think I can be of any help to you, so I will be stepping back from this thread. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:58, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Presumed GFDL images

There is a category called CAT:GFDL containing images that were tagged as {{GFDL-presumed}}, meaning that their license status is unknown, and they were presumed to have been GFDL'd by their uploaders awaiting clarification from them. However, there are still many files in that category to this day, and some haven't been corrected after 20 years. Should we follow in the footsteps of Commons and en.wikipedia by treating them the same as any other unlicensed files (that is, making them eligible for speedy deletion after seven days)? Courtesy ping: MGA73, who first suggested this on Template talk:GFDL-presumed. JJP_Master (she/they) 06:31, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree since many of these are clearly PD as basic text or shapes. Once those have been relicensed correctly and then moved to Commons and then we can do that. For what it's worth, I'm willing to help, as I'm the king of derelict files at en.wv, where I've moved and deleted a few thousand. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thank you JJP for the ping and for bringing this up here. I agree with User:Koavf that many/most of the files are PD ineligible. If anyone would like to work on those files I copyied User:MGA73/information.js here from another wiki and if its added like in User:MGA73/common.js then you get a button so it is very easy to add an information template like in Special:Diff/4468775. After that it should be easy to change the template and move the file to Commons. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 09:15, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh and since I talked to the king of derelict files I feel like I should offer a humble gift: A list of files to play with c:User:MGA73/GFDL-list :-D --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 09:18, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

I’ve added a feature to WB:LUNA that allows you to easily add file copyright tags. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:01, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Nice! If you can use any of the code from my script in LUNA you are very welcome to add it. Just notice that if there are more than one template on the file page it will only keep one of them. I used it on pages with only one template so I did not bother to make it keep them all. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 21:06, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Significant update requests to edit filters

Hello, everyone. As a global abuse filter helper, I have a proposal to create significant changes to edit filters, for administrators (who actively maintain filters here) to do:

1. Some edit filters are both set to warn and disallow, but it's now redundant as custom disallow messages are possible on filters. Similarly, edit filters that are set to both disallow and tag should have the tag action removed, as the disallowed edit will not go through with the tag in question.

2. Some, if not most of the edit filters have deprecated variables, in which I will list below what variables need to be updated:

• article_articleid to page_id
• article_namespace to page_namespace
• article_recent_contributors to page_recent_contributors
• article_text to page_title, article_prefixedtext to page_prefixedtitle

3. I would propose disabling (or even delete) some filters with reasons to disable:

• Special:AbuseFilter/5 (no recent hits since 2016, and there is global filter 123 that disallows poop vandalism on all projects, and here by extension [since this project allows global filters]).
• Special:AbuseFilter/15 (no recent hits since 2018)
• Special:AbuseFilter/16 (no recent hits since 2012)
• Special:AbuseFilter/17 (no recent hits since 2016)
• Special:AbuseFilter/41 (no recent hits since 2015)
• Special:AbuseFilter/42 (no recent hits since 2021)
• Special:AbuseFilter/43 and Special:AbuseFilter/45 (global filters 72 and 164 disallow spambots on all projects, thus these filters are redundant to use locally).
• Special:AbuseFilter/49 (no recent hits since 2016)
• Special:AbuseFilter/50 (before another hit came from January 2025, the previous hit was from March 2022)
• Special:AbuseFilter/54 (same reason for local filters 43 and 45, recent hits on 24 January do not appear to be spam)
• Special:AbuseFilter/56 (no recent hits since 2020)
• Special:AbuseFilter/58 (no recent hits since 2016)
• Special:AbuseFilter/59 (same reason for local filters 43 and 45, same reason as filter 54)
• Special:AbuseFilter/60 (global filter 222 prevents empty article creations, so it is redundant to have a local filter for this).
• Special:AbuseFilter/61 (no recent hits since 2020)
• Special:AbuseFilter/62 (no recent hits since 2019)
• Special:AbuseFilter/64 (no recent hits since 2020)
• Special:AbuseFilter/66 (no hits at all since its creation)
• Special:AbuseFilter/67 (only one hit since 2022)

Any thoughts or suggestions? Thank you. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait for some feedback (if anyone has one) before implementing; can @Codename Noreste ping me in case no one responds in a week? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 03:15, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

1. As for the deprecated variables, I think these changes are uncontroversial, so I'll be working on them.
2. I'll look into the other filters and be back soon.

JJP_Master (she/they) 14:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste: I'm immediately fine with disabling all of the filters except for 43, since I would need to be sure that the global filters cover the same kind of spambots as that filter. JJP_Master (she/they) 12:26, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Global filter 164 also disallows a specific type of spam that 43 disallows as well. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 14:54, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

@Codename Noreste: Okay, then it should be okay to disable it. JJP_Master (she/they) 15:12, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Add template(s) to main page?

Hello! I wanted to propose adding Template:Wikibooks editor navigation and possibly also Template:Wikibooks policies and guidelines to the very bottom of the main page—I think having these there could be helpful, and I don't see much of a detriment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

There is an error on both templates: Lua error in Module:Navbox at line 15: table index is nil. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Actually, never mind the reply in which I said, I recently reverted an update to Module:Navbox which caused errors to appear on some templates. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggested changes to some filters

Hello, everyone. I am back to suggest some more changes to Wikibooks' edit filters.

Suggested changes to filter 7

I reduced the global edit count to less than 30 edits. Because of Special:AbuseLog/302263, I added a regex string to exclude Wikimedia-related phrases. Instead of using rcount, for the http condition, I switched back to count, and used http (link phrase) and lcase(added_lines). user_editcount < 5 & global_user_editcount < 30 & !(added_lines irlike "mediawiki|wiki(?:books|data|functions|news|quote|species|source|versity|voyage)|wiki[mp]edia|wiktionary") & count("http", lcase(added_lines)) > count("http", lcase(removed_lines)) & count("<ref", added_lines) <= count("<ref", removed_lines)

Changes to filter 44 and its disallow message

Instead of old_size > 0, I used page_id != 0 and have placed it at the top. For the page namespace condition, I used an equals_to_any condition. Instead of only excluding reviewers, I excluded user groups and global user groups that have the autopatrol user right. page_id != 0 & /* only check on existing pages */ equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 102, 110) & !("autopatrol" in user_rights) & count(".wikipedia.org", added_lines) > count(".wikipedia.org", removed_lines) We should also modify filter 44's disallowing message. I would suggest moving it to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-wikipedia-url to maintain consistency with the disallow messages. I used an edit filter warning template and have made grammar changes and added a link to the edit filter false positive reports page. {{Edit filter warning | action = warn | friendly = yes | text = <big>'''Note'''</big>: Books should use links to Wikipedia sparsely and only to reference technical or esoteric terms that are critical to understanding the content. Normally, you should incorporate text into the book, not links, so that the book is self contained. When linking to Wikipedia, please do not use bare URLs. Instead, replace them with '''''<nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Name</nowiki>''''' with '''<nowiki>[[w:Article Name|Article Name]]</nowiki>''' or '''<nowiki>{{w|Article Name}}</nowiki>'''. If you have received this message in error, you may [[Wikibooks:Edit filter/False positives|report it here]]. }}

Thank you. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard@JJPMaster what do you think? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm broadly supportive. But code for private filters shouldn't be posted publicly. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)

This LGTM. JJP_Master (she/they) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)