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)

Update MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer as well as Template:Anontools?

I propose updating the following interface pages and the Anontools template to appear as close to the English Wikipedia, but we retain the word discussions and the Wikiscan link:

• MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon
• MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-anon-range
• MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer

I plan to modify the text for anonymous user footers:

This is the [[Help:Tracking changes#User contributions|contributions page]] for an IP user, identified by the user's [[:w:IP address|]]. Many IP addresses change periodically, and are often shared by several users. If you are an IP user, you may [[{{ns:Special}}:UserLogin|create an account or log in]] to avoid future confusion with other IP users. [[Help:Account management|Registering]] also hides your IP address. 

This also includes Anontools:

{{flatlist|1= * ([https://whois-referral.toolforge.org/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip={{{1}}} WHOIS]&nbsp;<sup>([https://www.robtex.com/ip-lookup/{{{1}}} alt]&nbsp;•&nbsp;[https://tools.wmflabs.org/whois/gateway.py?lookup=true&ip={{{1}}} old])</sup> * [https://whatismyipaddress.com/ip/{{{1}}} Geolocate]&nbsp;<sup>([https://www.iplocate.io/{{{1}}} Alternate])</sup> * [https://ipcheck.toolforge.org/index.php?ip={{{1}}} Proxy Checker] * [{{fullurl:Special%3ABlockList|ip={{{1}}}}} Current blocks] * [{{fullurl:Special%3AGlobalBlockList|ip={{{1}}}}} Global blocks] * [http://tools.wmflabs.org/guc/?user={{{1}}}&blocks=true Global contributions]) *([[:w:Regional Internet registry|RIR]]s: [https://rdap.afrinic.net/rdap/ip/{{{1}}} Africa] * [https://whois.arin.net/rest/ip/{{{1}}} America] * [https://wq.apnic.net/apnic-bin/whois.pl?searchtext={{{1}}} Asia-Pacific] * [https://apps.db.ripe.net/db-web-ui/query?searchtext={{{1}}} Europe] * [https://query.milacnic.lacnic.net/search?id={{{1}}} Latin America/Caribbean]) * [//enwikibooks.wikiscan.org/ip/{{urlencode:$1}} Wikiscan] }} 

As well as Sp-contributions-footer (when implementing Template:Sp-contributions-footer):

{{flatlist|1= * [[User:{{{1|Example}}}|{{{1|Example}}}]]: [[Special:Prefixindex/User:{{{1|Example}}}/|Subpages]] * [[Special:UserRights/{{{1|Example}}}|User rights]] * [[xtools:ec/en.wikibooks.org/{{urlencode:{{{1|Example}}}|PATH}}|Edit statistics]] * [https://sigma.toolforge.org/summary.py?name={{urlencode:{{{1|Example}}}|QUERY}} Edit summary search] * [[xtools:pages/en.wikibooks.org/{{{1|$1}}}/all|Pages created]] * [//tools.wmflabs.org/meta/stalktoy/{{urlencode:{{{1|$1}}}}} Stalk toy] * [http://enwikibooks.wikiscan.org/user/{{urlencode:{{{1|Example}}}}} Wikiscan] * Global: [https://guc.toolforge.org/?user={{urlencode:{{{1|Example}}}|QUERY}}&blocks=true contributions] * [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=globalauth&user=&page=User:{{urlencode:{{{1|Example}}}|QUERY}}@global log] * [[Special:CentralAuth/{{{1|Example}}}|accounts]]&nbsp;<sup>([[m:Special:CentralAuth/{{{1|Example}}}|meta]])</sup> }} 

Thoughts? Codename Noreste (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep the stalk toy tool, since I find it very useful! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I've re-added stalk toy. Codename Noreste (talk) 20:54, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

I will proceed with the changes if there are no objections by tomorrow. Codename Noreste (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

Implemented. Codename Noreste (talk) 17:48, 20 August 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

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)

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

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)

Proposals that involve the administrator toolset

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)

@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 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)