Wikibooks:Reading room/General
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests | Announcements |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Upload | Permissions | Bulletin Board |
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.
Have your say: vote for the 2025 Board of Trustees
[edit source]Hello all,
The voting period for the 2025 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates are running for two (2) seats on the Board.
To check your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.
Learn more about them by reading their application statements and watch their candidacy videos.
When you are ready, go to the SecurePoll voting page to vote.
The vote is open from October 8 at 00:00 UTC to October 22 at 23:59 UTC.
Best regards,
Abhishek Suryawanshi
Chair, Elections Committee
MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
[edit source]Hello. Please help pick a name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. This project will be a wiki that will enable users to combine functions from Wikifunctions and data from Wikidata in order to generate natural language sentences in any supported languages. These sentences can then be used by any Wikipedia (or elsewhere).
There will be two rounds of voting, each followed by legal review of candidates, with votes beginning on 20 October and 17 November 2025. Our goal is to have a final project name selected on mid-December 2025. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!
-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:42, 20 October 2025 (UTC)
Encyclopedic content
[edit source]I came here from a discussion on viwikibooks. An user there said:
Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia. However, you can certainly create a book that is an encyclopedia. I have discussed this with some English Wikibooks users, who agreed.
The mentioned discussion appears to be this one. I find the above to be a misleading, if not incorrect, interpretation of @Mbrickn and @MarcGarver's opinions. As I understand, they stated that:
- Wikibooks allows lexicons. For encyclopedias that are found on Wikibooks, there are presumably reasons as to why they cannot be transwikied to Wikipedia.
- Though the cited book (hu:Heraldikai lexikon) might be more encyclopedic in style than other books, its focus and tone are more comparable to those of historical books on the same topic (like s:A Complete Guide to Heraldry) than Wikipedia's generically-worded articles.
- Each content page on Wikibooks needs to be formulated as a book (or a part thereof), not as an article like on Wikipedia. Books consisting of articles and/or encyclopedic in nature might or might not be allowed.
As such, these books are allowed (content-wise):
- Bách khoa toàn thư Lịch sử (Encyclopedia of History)
- Bách khoa nhân vật lịch sử Việt Nam (Encyclopedia of historical figures of Vietnam)
But not:
- Các loài thực vật được mô tả (Described plants)
- Danh sách tiểu hành tinh (List of asteroids)
The viwikibooks discussion is about the project's scope and other founding principles. I would like to make as informed a choice as possible, so a detailed explanation would be very much appreciated. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- Wikibooks is for educational textbooks and each book is self-contained. Wikipedia is, in Wikibooks terms, a single book, with each article being equivalent to a chapter or page in the Wikbook book. My opinion is Wikibooks does not host single pages that are, in effect, an encyclopaedia entry. It can, however, host a book which is an encyclopaedia. In my opinion this would need to be focused on a subject with some logical connection between the chapters - like the examples you give - rather than being a general encyclopaedia with a random collection of stuff. On this basis, I would agree with your examples of what can and can't be included. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 07:30, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
- @NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh I generally agree with MarcGarver's response above! I do think there needs to be interdependency between the chapters/pages of a book, and they should build on and complement each other. I also have my own personal opinions about what makes a book instructional and thus within Wikibooks scope, but that's not community consensus (just my own thoughts). Does this help? Or, did you have any other specific questions? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:16, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, that's very helpful. Thanks. I take it this is a problem even the English Wikibooks doesn't have "hard" consensus on. The original 2002 proposal isn't clear on what counts as a textbook either:
[...] a textbook leads a person thru a subject, helping them prepare for an exam or some other practical application.
- NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (discuss • contribs) 02:05, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, from my perspective I don't think we have a "hard" consensus. Other people who have been around the project longer than I have might be able to call to mind more discussions on the topic; but, I do feel like the consensus definition here is loose. The idea you cited that
"a textbook leads a person thru a subject, helping them prepare for an exam or some other practical application"
does resonate with me personally and my general thought that instructional books should be tailored to engage the reader in some way rather than just presenting a summary of factual information. But, not everyone here shares this view; I think you would have to come to a consensus together on your project if you wanted to implement something like that. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:14, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
- Yes, from my perspective I don't think we have a "hard" consensus. Other people who have been around the project longer than I have might be able to call to mind more discussions on the topic; but, I do feel like the consensus definition here is loose. The idea you cited that
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
[edit source]Each year, typically from October through December, several of the movement’s committees seek new volunteers.
Read more about the committees on their Meta-wiki pages:
Applications for the committees open on October 30, 2025. Applications for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission and the Case Review Committee close on December 11, 2025. Learn how to apply by visiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cst
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
For the Committee Support team,
- MKaur (WMF) 14:12, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Recent creations of books about education and Uzbekistan
[edit source]I recently noticed that no less than four books were created about the educational systems of different countries - and, in what cannot possibly be a coincidence, all four of them make comparisons to education in Uzbekistan:
- Syngapore Education System [sic!]
- Educational Developments in Singapore
- Educational Development of Great Britain
- Finland education system
@Dilbarbonuxon, @Mirkurbanova Sevdo, @Guliismailova, @Diose01: I assume you are working together on something here. Is this part of a class project or some other initiative?
This seems to be a recurring project; there's books from some years back with similar themes:
- Finnish Education: The Nordic Way#Positive sides to bring to Uzbekistan's education system
- Indonesian Education System#Conclusion / Aspects to be implemented in Uzbekistan's education system
As well as a past discussion at Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2023/September#Recently created userspace sandboxes related to education. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 19:51, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
- I'm also seeing Education in Japan. It seems like these should be compiled into a cohesive book, if possible. We'll need to make sure they have a cohesive and coherent instructional scope. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:12, 12 November 2025 (UTC)
- Educational Developments in Australia also. These editors don't seem to be particularly responsive either. @Komila Olimova can you give any context here? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:24, 13 November 2025 (UTC)
SVG vs raster
[edit source]Hello. Generally wiki prefers SVG but I am not sure if it is so for wikibooks because of printing. If I stumble upon a raster picture which has SVG version (and it is the same as raster but just vector), I should replace it with svg? DustDFG (discuss • contribs) 16:27, 14 November 2025 (UTC)
- Most Wikibooks never will have hard copy. Find the best quality illustration. The Commons categories are helpful.
- Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 01:26, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
Moving - deletion books without clarification
[edit source]Per Wikibooks:Please do not bite the newcomers and "The most important tools that Wikibookians have to make decisions are compromise and consensus." is it OK if an administrator without previous notification
- no communication on user page
- No greeting, no citation of related rules
- giving no time for explanation, neither corrective steps
- makes wrong redirections like
- makes mass (wrong) rename/redirection in Open Book of Permaculture (ab. 10 pages)
- makes deletion on an actively developed book core page Eco-comm
- No community decision over the deletion of meaningful content
My point is not about if a Wikibookian administrator has valid observations but "Administrators are not granted any extra authority; they must follow all policies."
Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 04:29, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- And you need to follow the policies, and the community norms. No meaningful content was deleted and the page move was entirely within the ability of anyone to do - admin or not. Because no admin tools were used, there is no "extra authority" being exercised. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Agree, lets make great Wikibooks on great way. (Setting aside my shock and focusing on productivity.)
- Let me put it into a broader perspective. The goal I represent here is to create an international knowledge base involving the permaculture activists. Having a universal short title that remains the same across all languages makes it easier to catch up and adapt the structure. It’s a larger work similar to launching a new WikiProject, while still fitting within the purpose and framework of Wikibooks.
- I am already doing preparation for months
- Checked for merging ways: Talk:Permaculture_Design#Updates_2025
- https://hu.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perma - Hungarian Version already built
- https://es.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perma - Spanish version can have the same easy name
- https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Perma - English version can have the same easy name
- I already have experts willing to collaborate (GEN (Global Ecovillage Network)) once the framework is ready.
- ===Simple, short name for books===
- I double checked the naming policy Wikibooks:Naming policy, Help:Local_manuals_of_style#Deep_structure_(Book/chapters/subchapters/subsubchapters/etc.) and find no rule what a title should look-a-like, if it can be a short version like Wikijunior stands for "Books for children", IB French - not clear what is about or like the URL https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/General has more sense as Hypetext Transfer Protocol Secured//Organization/Wikibooks/English version/Wiki pages/Wikibooks
- Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 02:17, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding naming, in theory I think that having a book title like "Perma" should be fine as you describe—it just needs to be consistent across the entire book, since that's how books are structured as single, cohesive books. For example, it would be fine to have all the chapters nested under "Perma" or all the chapters nested under "Permaculture Design"; but, you shouldn't have some pages nested under the first with other pages nested under the second. That was what I was trying to address in my original edits by moving pages under Permaculture Design, but we could just as well move everything to be under Perma. You can also make it so the displayed title is different from the actual title/path of the page, which offers more flexibility. Does this make sense? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
- The Permaculture Design structure not suitable any more, so I need to put aside and add those pages in a later stage. The Title template resolve the short/long name duality, thanks. Rodrigo (discuss • contribs) 01:49, 26 November 2025 (UTC)
- Regarding naming, in theory I think that having a book title like "Perma" should be fine as you describe—it just needs to be consistent across the entire book, since that's how books are structured as single, cohesive books. For example, it would be fine to have all the chapters nested under "Perma" or all the chapters nested under "Permaculture Design"; but, you shouldn't have some pages nested under the first with other pages nested under the second. That was what I was trying to address in my original edits by moving pages under Permaculture Design, but we could just as well move everything to be under Perma. You can also make it so the displayed title is different from the actual title/path of the page, which offers more flexibility. Does this make sense? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 04:09, 21 November 2025 (UTC)
Reminder: Help us decide the name of the new Abstract Wikipedia project
[edit source]Hello. Reminder: Please help to choose name for the new Abstract Wikipedia wiki project. The finalist vote starts today. The finalists for the name are: Abstract Wikipedia, Multilingual Wikipedia, Wikiabstracts, Wikigenerator, Proto-Wiki. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at meta-wiki. Thank you!
-- User:Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
A discussion about Investiture of the Gods.
[edit source]Please see wikisource:Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Portal:Investiture of the Gods for a discussion about a work that used to be hosted on Wikibooks. It appears to be broadly in scope for this Wikimedia project, being an annotation or a reading guide to a historically-notable work - but it seems that it was moved to Wikisource portal space at some point due to being incomplete. Can this now be hosted here as a work-in-progress, or should it rather be moved elsewhere again, due to its seemingly long-term WIP status (most probably to Wikiversity, as a generic educational resource)? ~2025-27371-40 (talk) 17:13, 23 November 2025 (UTC)
- I just took a look at this. The main issue I see is that the majority is essentially plot summary, which I'm not sure would fall in scope as an instructional book here. See, for example, the discussion at Wikibooks:Requests for deletion#Ghouls of the Miskatonic —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:54, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Feel free to correct me if I'm missing the point, but ISTM that "extensive book summaries" of historically notable works of literature are explicitly noted as a kind of permitted instructional material in Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?#What_is_Wikibooks. This holds to an even greater extent in this case, which is about commentary on a historical work of Chinese literature which will reference Chinese folk religion and mythology throughout. The potential instructional value of such commentary for English-language readers should hopefully be clear enough to this community. Your referenced RFD is about a summary of a modern work, which brings completely different issues into the picture. (Including potential copyright/IP concerns, at least in principle. None of this applies here.)
- (Wikibooks:Annotated texts further confirms this broad point: it includes "summaries" and "lists" as a kind of allowed study aids for the purpose of "understanding or teaching the text". This work has per-chapter summaries and list-like "categorization of events", which arguably is quintessential "reading guide" content.) --~2025-27371-40 (talk) 11:20, 1 December 2025 (UTC)
Issues with Wikibooks:Requests for deletion
[edit source]I would like to highlight some issues with the RFD page:
- There are many non-closed requests that aren't responded to (most were made by Kittycataclysm). Would it be feasible to increase the discussion time for two weeks minimum instead of one week?
- Manually archiving closed RFD requests can be tedious; therefore, a bot task (to archive closed RFD requests) might make sense.
- If a main book page is nominated for deletion, would its subpages have to be deleted as well?
- I propose we create a new section named
Requests for deletion (miscellaneous)
for RFD, where it's for non-mainspace/Cookbook/Wikijunior pages.
Thoughts? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 03:52, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Codename Noreste
- Because activity on the project is low, increasing the official discussion time before an administrator can take action seems reasonable. Would the idea be that if there are no objections by the end of the discussion period, the nominated page(s) could be deleted? That could help us determine the reasonable period.
- I think a bot task to archive closed RFD requests is reasonable.
- Yes, nominating a main page for deletion includes all its subpages.
- I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the
Requests for deletion (miscellaneous)
—could you elaborate?
- Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- For response 1, I agree.
For response 4, it would mean a page that is nominated for deletion (not speedy deletion), but the page is not a mainspace, Cookbook, or Wikijunior page.
I am pinging JJPMaster to see if a new bot task might be feasible. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)- @Kittycataclysm and Codename Noreste: This should be doable.
Working... JJPMaster (she/they) 20:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should we create a new RFD closure template that can trigger archiving after one day? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Codename Noreste: The code I'm currently working on should automatically archive any requests that were closed within the week before the bot's run (it hasn't started running yet because of a problem). Do you think a new template would be better? JJPMaster (she/they) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly, but would it archive requests that have
{{closed}}and{{end closed}}? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 22:47, 29 November 2025 (UTC)- @Codename Noreste: Yep. You can see the code here. I haven't sent it into production yet, so it still has my sandbox page set as the archiving page. JJPMaster (she/they) 23:40, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Codename Noreste: I got a bit impatient and ran the bot manually once. You are free to look at what it did. JJPMaster (she/they) 22:38, 30 November 2025 (UTC)
- Possibly, but would it archive requests that have
- @Codename Noreste: The code I'm currently working on should automatically archive any requests that were closed within the week before the bot's run (it hasn't started running yet because of a problem). Do you think a new template would be better? JJPMaster (she/they) 22:36, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- Should we create a new RFD closure template that can trigger archiving after one day? Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 20:08, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Codename Noreste What would be the use case of having a separate section at WB:RFD for non-Main/Cookbook/Wikijunior? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:46, 29 November 2025 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm and Codename Noreste: This should be doable.
- For response 1, I agree.