Welcome to theGeneral reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see theProposals reading room.
Upcoming Dark Mode user interface rollout for anonymous Wikimedia sites users
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello Wikimedians,
Apologies if this message is not in your language. Please help translate to your language.
TheReader Experience team will launch the Dark mode feature for anonymous users on all Wikimedia sites, including yours, on October 29, 2025.
Dark mode is an option that allows users to view pages in light-coloured text, and icons on a dark background. Once it is available for anonymous users, they can enable it when using various devices. More information on ways to enable it can be found onthis page.Given many pages are still not compatible with dark mode this will be an opt-in feature and not automatically apply to pages.
Dark mode requires modifications to content pages and templates, and since our initial launchin July 2024, we have been working with communities and helping them prepare for dark mode. Before the rollout, it is essential that template authors and technical contributors test dark mode and readthis page to learn how to make pages Dark mode-ready and address any compatibility issues found in templates.
We will fix most color compatibility issues only on the most-viewed pages on projects with over 5 million monthly page views. Technical contributors with an account should opt into dark mode currently using preferences or settings and test pages and seek help before the release to ensure everything complies before the enablement.
Latest comment:1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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 fromWikifunctions 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, thenplease learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.Thank you!
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 bethis 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 arepresumably 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 (likes: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.
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)Reply
@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 ownpersonalopinions 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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
Seeking volunteers to join several of the movement’s committees
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 byvisiting the appointment page on Meta-wiki. Post to the talk page or email cstwikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
Latest comment:15 days ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I recently noticed that no less thanfour 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:
Latest comment:11 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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)Reply
Most Wikibooks never will have hard copy. Find the best quality illustration. TheCommonscategories are helpful.
Latest comment:3 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion
PerWikibooks: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 anadministrator without previous notification
no communication on user page
No greeting, no citation of related rules
giving no time for explanation, neither corrective steps
makes deletion on an actively developed book core pageEco-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."
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)Reply
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.
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 underPermaculture Design, but we could just as well move everything to be underPerma. You can also make it so thedisplayed 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)Reply
Latest comment:8 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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, thenplease learn more and vote now at meta-wiki.Thank you!
Latest comment:12 hours ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Please seewikisource: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)Reply
Latest comment:11 hours ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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 byKittycataclysm). 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 namedRequests for deletion (miscellaneous) for RFD, where it's for non-mainspace/Cookbook/Wikijunior pages.
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 theRequests for deletion (miscellaneous)—could you elaborate?
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 pingingJJPMaster to see if a new bot task might be feasible.Codename Noreste (discuss •contribs)20:01, 28 November 2025 (UTC)Reply
wikimedia.org with any questions you may have.
Working...JJPMaster (she/they)20:45, 28 November 2025 (UTC)