Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals/2021/June

Image-linking with regards to licensing
Hi everyone,

I'd like to bring the following discussion to your attention: c:Special:Permanentlink/559354101.

I was asking about linking images and licensing, and did get an answer with information I wasn't aware of. I took a quick look at your image-help and did not find a corresponding hint either. So maybe you'd like to add information about this to your help pages. I will do so for german wikibooks.

Best regards --HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 11:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


 * HirnSpuk I apologize for seeing this so late. At the link you posted you made an interesting point about physical book and ebook licensing. I think instead of manual attribution, which is unsustainable to do accurately on larger works and error prone, it may be best if a template were developed which automatically handles attribution at the end of a book for all used assets using machine readable tags on commons. I'm unsure if this is truly a good approach or if there are better ideas though - Just what came to mind. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 00:25, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Mbrickn, no need to apologize :-)... I need to, because I forgot to clearly mention, what's the problem: Images usually may not be linked, because licensing-requirements are lost that way. There even might be problems, when printing content.
 * I like the idea of machine readable tags, though I'm not skilled enough to even remotely jugde how this might be feasible and what benefits it could bring. In svg you can attribute within the file pretty easy, though I don't know if anybody uses this.
 * I was playing with the Cite-Extension to do something similar. Though it needs manual work. If you take a look at this edit: b:de:Special:Diff/prev/960255. For now I didn't make a Template out of this, it was just simple playing around.
 * Maybe all Wikibooks could team up and talk about a "possible solution" (assuming this is some kind of a problem), so we could present something to the mediawiki developers and/or to commons with one voice? This might be interesting to other Wikiprojects as well (thinking about e. g. Wikivoyage)?
 * Best regards --HirnSpuk (discuss • contribs) 08:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

OpenStax/Wikibooks Collaboration?
OpenStax seems to be on a similar trajectory with a lot of the textbooks in similar subjects to that on Wikibooks. What if we were to share resources in between and complete some of the books on our end, and help begin some of theirs, or we gain some additional editors/people who could assist in making the books. I know this is a bit of a far-out idea, but I could look into it if it seems like a remotely good idea. Also, I'm a new user because I'm intrigued by the project, and so my lack of knowledge and general experience is very present.
 * Please explain your proposal further. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 07:27, 13 June 2021 (UTC)


 * OpenStax has a lot of funding and editors for their work, and its typically for free use (aside from printed publication prices from them). If Wikibooks were to partner with them, there could be additional funding and editors creating books over here at Wikibooks possibly? I'm not really too sure on this idea and I'll have to come back to it later. Addy135 (discuss • contribs) 07:34, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not sure how exactly you want Wikibooks to partner - some examples would be helpful. Any freely-licensed book can be imported here after all. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:54, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Ah ok. I'll look more into it. How would I close this section? Addy135 (discuss • contribs) 03:40, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Reading room discussions aren't really closed per say. They typically go into an archive from what I understand once discussion has stopped and someone decides to sweep the room, like Reading room/Proposals/2021/January. I'm relatively new to editing Wikibooks, but I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. :) --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:07, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
 * As per working with OpenStax content in Wikibooks, there are a few things to note. Organizational partnering (In terms of sharing resources officially, etc.) is something that's a bit out of my depth, but it would probably require community consensus, and possibly the consent of the Wikimedia foundation and Rice University, which manages OpenStax depending on the exact nature of the collaboration. However, as Leaderboard points out, we are mostly free to import OpenStax content to Wikibooks due to compatible licenses. There are a few caveats of course. The biggest is that not all OpenStax content is open enough for Wikibooks, due to incompatible licenses. For example the OpenStax Calculus Book volumes 1, 2 and 3 are licensed as CC-BY-SA-NC-4.0. The NC, or non-commercial component, is right out for most Wikimedia projects, based on the Wikimedia Commons document describing how they license things here here. Fortunately most OpenStax books do not have' this non commercial requirement, making this a non issue for them. The second issue (Which is more on Wikibooks then on OpenStax) is that Wikibooks uses Creative Commons 3.0 and GDFL, and OpenStax uses Creative Commons 4.0. I'm not sure how CC 4.0 licenses interact with a site using a 3.0 license for it's content, but I suspect this is the easier factor to solve (But I'm not a lawyer).--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Pseudobot change proposals
Seeing an increasing number of users make use of AWB here. My proposal is to


 * allow any sysop to add/remove pseudobot to any account (currently they can only add it to themselves). AWB works better that way as manual confirmation is no longer needed.
 * allow any user with the pseudobot flag to remove it from themselves when finished. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 18 June 2021 (UTC)


 * , the proposals seem fine to me. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators/Temporary administrators
Following a request for temporary adminship at Requests for permissions, I am suggesting the addition of the text at Administrators/Temporary administrators to administrator policy.

Please show your support or opposition here; also please discuss any amendments that may be required here, or any other comments.


 * Support as proposer. -- Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * "When the agreed time period for adminship expires." isn't needed - the software will enforce this. Also sure, the policy is OK, but I also have the feeling that the existing Wikibooks structure is good in that it isn't too bureaucratic and there is an unwritten provision to make exceptions when needed. Not sure if the policy is required as a result, but I have no issues with its inclusion. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * - Seems like a useful policy for when short adminships are desirable. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Approving of someone as an administrator isn’t a casual decision I can make within a minute or two. Frankly, I am not so keen on going through the process if it is meant to last only for a month or so. Kai Burghardt (discuss • contribs) 15:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . Temporary admins who promise to limit their intended tasks are not to exceed the limits without absolute necessity. Seeking to temporarily undelete means not to block users if no dire need.--Jusjih (discuss • contribs) 23:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * . It is needed because while WB is not bureaucratic, Stewards will not act without some evidence that the community supports the action. If we can't point to a policy or a discussion then they won't de-admin a rogue user. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)