Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2023/January

Books that break on new visual style

Should anything be done for pages that break on the new visual style such as Pinyin? Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 17:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[]

I forgot to mention, but the page is initially fine until you scroll down, at which point title text is clipped off. Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 17:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[]
This also occurs with the title of The Computer Revolution (Right hand side clips) Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 20:54, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Background color of text and height of rows in a table.

Hi,
This morning added a page named FTP.Tool and have difficulty adjusting two details.

(1) At the top and bottom of the page is a pale grey background. How can that be made white to match the rest of the page?

(2) Most of the content is formatted as a table and I want to reduce the height of all rows. According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Table#Width,_height the height of a row is adjusted by replacing "|-" with "|- style=height:0.8em". Also I imagined "|- style=height:0.8rem" might allow proportionality to text height. Tried both with no effect. Ideas?

Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 20:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[]

@PeterEasthope Is it possible to use a decimal value when specifying with "em"?. I fiddled around, and it seemed like only integer values worked. Also, is there a reason you're not using wiki markup to italicize things on that page? Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:41, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Decimal rem works. Decimal em should also. Eg. Oberon/ETH Oberon/2.3.7/Tutorials.Tool. In fact I should format FTP.Tool similar to Tutorials.Tool, including Wikimedia markup for italics.
The markup in question is created automatically by MediaWiki.Markup. Revising to italicize with apostrophes rather than the style attribute should be possible. Not sure the result will be simpler. The style attribute can include color, emboldening, size and vertical offset. Apostrophes won't fit that pattern. I'll revise manually analogous to Tutorials.Tool.
Thx, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 05:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Formatting is revised. Closer to MediaWiki markup and rendering closer to original Oberon document. FTP.Tool

Thanks for the help, ... PeterEasthope (discuss • contribs) 17:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct


You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hello all,

In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.

The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.

The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.

How to vote?

Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.

Who can vote?

The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.

What happens after the vote?

Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

~~~~ Mervat (WMF) (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Modifying a template

Hello! Many recipes in the cookbook include the templates Nutrition Summary and Nutritionsummary. I imagine they are helpful to some people, but I am a little concerned that having them automatically fully displayed could be detrimental/discouraging to those with eating disorders (the goal of a cookbook is to get people to cook!)—is there a way these templates could be modified so they exist as a dropdown that is automatically hidden but that can be expanded for anyone who wants to see the information? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[]

It shouldn't be too hard to make them collapsed, but I'm disinclined to hide information, especially for someone who may have motor difficulties trying to click on it to expand. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Koavf That's a fair point! I'm not quite sure how to resolve this technical conflict, though, since having it open could negatively impact one disabled population while having it collapsed could impact a second disabled population with conflicting needs. I wonder if any more experienced users than myself have any thoughts or know of any technical way to address this (@JackPotte @MarcGarver @Xania @Atcovi @Leaderboard @SHB2000). Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@Kittycataclysm: I do not have a specific opinion either way; I am unfamiliar with how the presence of nutrition summaries impact those with eating disorders. I agree with Koavf in that should it be needed to collapse by default, this should not be difficult.
That being said, I think the summaries won't be easy to understand without a reference point (like is 10 g of sodium good or bad?). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I think I'd prefer this collapsed by default, but I'm not married to this. SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Resigning

All, since renaming became centralised, the requirements for a local bureaucrat have rapidly declined and average one or two actions a year. I think it is inappropriate to have only one local bureaucrat so I am resigning from the role. I also feel increasingly detached from the community here and am, to be honest, fed up with everything being questioned. The latter is a critical issue - the point of crats is to represent the view of the community. If I don't feel fully connected to the community then I can't represent you. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 17:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[]

@MarcGarver I'm sorry to hear that you've had such negative experiences, but I understand your perspective! Does this mean that going forward we should direct any issues that require a bureaucrat to m:Steward requests since we will have no bureaucrats on Wikibooks? Thank you, and I hope you have a better time in the new year! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@MarcGarver: Sorry to hear all your negative experiences, but thank you for your service as a bureaucrat on this wiki. I wish you all the best for your future.
@Kittycataclysm: Yes, that now means all issues that require a bureaucrat will need to be requested at either m:Steward requests (specifically m:SRP). That is, unless, we get a new bureaucrat after MarcGarver resigns. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 22:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Very few projects of this size have Bureaucrats now. They really don't have a job - promote one admin a year, and flag the occasional bot. I would leave it to the Stewards to do the work if I were you. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 08:41, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@MarcGarver To check: will you be updating Wikibooks:Administrators to reflect your resignation? Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Wow, how did I miss this? @MarcGarver: I hope you at least stay for a bit. If you do feel like staying, at least become an admin. I've seen you in RC quite a bit doing admin tasks, so you should at least get/keep that. — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 09:59, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Oh wait, you're a steward. — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 10:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]
I have admin rights here, they are separate from the 'crat rights. I have only resigned as a 'crat. I can't use my Steward rights on this project - that's part of the Steward policy. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Autoconfirmed requirements

Hello Wikibookians, I am a bit concerned about the modest autoconfirmed requirements. Even passing 4 days with no edits can become autoconfirmed, which allows LTAs to wait 4 days after account creation and vandalise semi-protected pages. Can we consider changing requirements for autoconfirmed to 4 days and 10 edits? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[]

Support

  • I think that would be fair and might give the LTAs a need to contribute constructively for a bit before they are able to vandalize. What about also including that the user must also make at least 3 edits every day, for 3 days, with the allowance of a single day to make fewer? Or is that to harsh? It would at least make users need to be more active, not just make ten edits on day one and wait a few days. — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 11:13, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[]
    So for e.g: day 1: 4 edits, day 2: 2 edits, day 3: 3 edits, day 4, 3 (or more) edits. Day 5: autoconfirmed. That is what I picture. — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 11:16, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[]
  • It does seem like autoconfirmation might benefit from having a very small edit requirement, such as 10 edits. I do know that reviewing is the main tool wikibooks uses to combat vandalism—maybe an admin can speak to why there is no current editing requirement for autoconfirmation? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[]
+1 to LionMaster suggestion but I would prefer longer active trial period (10 days of edit - with 3 days of continuous edit)? MrAlanKoh (discuss • contribs) 14:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]
@MrAlanKoh: So within 10 days, three days in a row the user edits? Did I get that right? How many edits would you agree on? And what would we do about users who prefer fewer but larger edits? — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 22:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]
Woop, I did not write the above comment correctly xD. @MrAlanKoh: does this sound good to you: 10 days of continuous editing, maybe 3 edits every day? And 2 - 3 days max of "margin for error" and making fewer edits? Theres always the confirmed right if an avid user has unusual editing patterns and fails the autopromotion. — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 12:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Abstain

Oppose

  • My personal book writing habit: very few and thus very huge edits. I believe setting a minimum edit requirement will unnecessarily impede (new) book contributions. As mentioned by Kittycataclysm, reviewing is de facto the main tool to fight vandalism. ‑‑ Kai Burghardt (discuss • contribs) 23:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[]
    Do you still make about 3 edits a day or more? If so, my suggestion (above) sould work for you and others with the same "habit" (quite a good one, unless your browser likes crashing) — L10nM4st3r / ROAR at me! 21:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[]

Comments

See this link, where the autoconfirmed LTA named Autoconfirmedtoo undid the revertion on semi-protected page Saylor.org's Comparative Politics/African Case Studies. Before the LTA became autoconfirmed, the LTA made no edits. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 15:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[]

The autoconfirm configuration (like everything else) can be viewed in the NOC. The default for all wikis is 4 days, zero edits 

'wgAutoConfirmAge' => 'default' => 4 * 3600 * 24, // 4 days to pass isNewbie()

The default for edits is 0 

'wgAutoConfirmCount' => 'default' => 0

If you want something different, then a phabricator ticket is required pointing to an agreement here to make the change. So, to answer the question above, it is zero today because that is the default, not because it was ever requested to be zero. MarcGarver (discuss • contribs) 12:28, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[]

This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is available under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Additional terms may apply for the media files.