Wikibooks:RFC

ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
DiscussionsAssistanceRequestsAnnouncements
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Upload | Permissions Bulletin Board
Category:Move-protected project pages#Reading%20room/Proposals

Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.

Suggested changes to some filters

Hello, everyone. I am back to suggest some more changes to Wikibooks' edit filters.

Suggested changes to filter 7
  • I reduced the global edit count to less than 30 edits.
  • Because of Special:AbuseLog/302263, I added a regex string to exclude Wikimedia-related phrases.
  • Instead of using rcount, for the http condition, I switched back to count, and used http (link phrase) and lcase(added_lines).
user_editcount < 5 &
global_user_editcount < 30 &
!(added_lines irlike "mediawiki|wiki(?:books|data|functions|news|quote|species|source|versity|voyage)|wiki[mp]edia|wiktionary") &
count("http", lcase(added_lines)) > count("http", lcase(removed_lines)) &
count("<ref", added_lines) <= count("<ref", removed_lines)
Changes to filter 44 and its disallow message
  • Instead of old_size > 0, I used page_id != 0 and have placed it at the top.
  • For the page namespace condition, I used an equals_to_any condition.
  • Instead of only excluding reviewers, I excluded user groups and global user groups that have the autopatrol user right.
page_id != 0 & /* only check on existing pages */
equals_to_any(page_namespace, 0, 102, 110) &
!("autopatrol" in user_rights) &
count(".wikipedia.org", added_lines) > count(".wikipedia.org", removed_lines)

We should also modify filter 44's disallowing message.

  • I would suggest moving it to MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed-wikipedia-url to maintain consistency with the disallow messages.
  • I used an edit filter warning template and have made grammar changes and added a link to the edit filter false positive reports page.
{{Edit filter warning
| action = warn
| friendly = yes
| text     = <big>'''Alert'''</big>: Books should use links to Wikipedia sparsely and only to reference technical or esoteric terms that are critical to understanding the content. Normally, you should incorporate text into the book, not links, so that the book is self contained.

When linking to Wikipedia, please do not use bare URLs. Instead, replace them with '''''<nowiki>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Name</nowiki>''''' with '''<nowiki>[[w:Article Name|Article Name]]</nowiki>''' or '''<nowiki>{{w|Article Name}}</nowiki>'''.

If you have received this message in error, you may [[Wikibooks:Edit filter/False positives|report it here]].
}}

Thank you. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

@Leaderboard@JJPMaster what do you think? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:18, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I'm broadly supportive. But code for private filters shouldn't be posted publicly. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 10 April 2025 (UTC)
I made sure that both of the filters I posted are not hidden from public view before adding my suggestions here. Codename Noreste (discuss • contribs) 01:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)
This LGTM. JJPMaster (she/they) 17:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)
I am far away from my laptop, so I will implement those changes when I get home. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 02:00, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Filter 7 now fixed, will do the same for filter 44 and its message later. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 05:44, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Now implemented. Codename Noreste (talk · contribs) 12:04, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

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 ten edits in addition to four days to new, registered users. Codename Noreste (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

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)