Wikibooks:Reading room/Proposals
(Redirected from Wikibooks:RFC)
Latest comment: 4 days ago by Xeverything11 in topic New nutrition summary for Cookbook
| Discussions | Assistance | Requests | Announcements |
|---|---|---|---|
| General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books | General | Technical | Administrative | Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Bulletin Board |
Welcome to the Proposals reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about suggestions for improving Wikibooks.
Improving interwikis
[edit source]All of you confirm that WB is one of the Wikimedia projects with the least number of interwikis. What's your solution for increasing the number of interwikis? Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Doostdar. I'm afraid I don't understand what you're saying here. Do you have a specific proposal? We are aware of issues with interwikis here, but addressing them is not simple, and I'm not sure anyone here knows the way forward. This is quite a small project at the moment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- This project already has about 100,000 useful pages and is not a small wiki. I'd rather hear your proposals. I have several proposal, one of them is creating books with similar subpages that is using the same format for all the subpages of a book. In other words a books about jungle animals can include subpages that contain taxonomy, habitat, evoloution, conservation status, food, etc. In this way it would be easier to translate and each subpage can have an equivalent in other WB versions. Doostdar (discuss • contribs) 20:13, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Enabling meta:Global bots on this wiki
[edit source]Hi, we've historically disabled global bots on this wiki, because of (I'm guessing) fears about them creating unwanted edits for us to review (not sure about this - couldn't find any on-wiki discussion about this); however, it turns out that global bots already include autoreview meaning that this issue should not happen. I propose we enable them, as this will help global bot operators who don't need to come to this wiki separately to request the bot flag (not that we have many of them anyway) - if we run into problems we can tell the operator not to run it on this wiki or block it if necessary. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I have no problems with this! Out of curiosity, what kinds of things do these global bots do? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm Depends. Historically these bots only could fix double-redirects and maintain interlanguage links (which has been redundant now with Wikidata). In 2021, this restriction was removed and any kind of task is now allowed, provided that a global 2-week discussion occurs on whether the community thinks that the bot is good. An example of a global bot is User:InternetArchiveBot, which fixes links that have gone dead. My bot (which is under discussion by the community) is meta:Global reminder bot, reminding users when their temporary rights (like your temp admin) are due to expire so that they can renew. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:06, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- I'd rather not have global bots here. Engage with the community if you want to use your bots. --Xania
talk 06:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. I just don't want our community to be cut off from the resources available to the global community. While I do ideally want people to be engaging with our community directly, the reality is that we are very small, and I don't expect individual bot creators to always come to us directly. I imagine that if we did enable global bots, we would have more of a say in how they are operated as well, forcing engagement between us and the global community, which seems like a good thing. Plus, it seems that global bots are efficient. @Leaderboard if there were specific global bots we didn't like, would we be able to individually disable them here? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm Of course, we can tell the operator not to run the bot, and if that isn't possible for whatever reason, we simply block the bot. Also it's important to note that any new global bot is subject to a 2-week discussion period that's actually advertised via MassMessage (the list of pages that get notified is at m:Bot_policy/New_global_bot_discussion) - so if we want, we can choose to be notified whenever any bot applies for global bot permission. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable to me. @Xania do you have specifics you can elaborate on regarding your concern? I'd like to better understand your perspective, but I don't from your comment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- @Kittycataclysm Of course, we can tell the operator not to run the bot, and if that isn't possible for whatever reason, we simply block the bot. Also it's important to note that any new global bot is subject to a 2-week discussion period that's actually advertised via MassMessage (the list of pages that get notified is at m:Bot_policy/New_global_bot_discussion) - so if we want, we can choose to be notified whenever any bot applies for global bot permission. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm not sure I agree with this reasoning. I just don't want our community to be cut off from the resources available to the global community. While I do ideally want people to be engaging with our community directly, the reality is that we are very small, and I don't expect individual bot creators to always come to us directly. I imagine that if we did enable global bots, we would have more of a say in how they are operated as well, forcing engagement between us and the global community, which seems like a good thing. Plus, it seems that global bots are efficient. @Leaderboard if there were specific global bots we didn't like, would we be able to individually disable them here? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- I support enabling global bots. This wiki is small enough for that. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
- This has been done: meta:Steward_requests/Miscellaneous#Enable_global_bots_for_en.wikibooks. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
New nutrition summary for Cookbook
[edit source]Nutrition Facts | ||
|---|---|---|
| 4 servings per recipe | ||
| Serving size | 1 cup (227g) | |
| Amount per serving Calories |
277 | |
| % Daily Value* | ||
| Total Fat 9g | 12% | |
| Saturated Fat 4.5g | 23% | |
| Trans Fat 0g | ||
| Cholesterol 35mg | 12% | |
| Sodium 850mg | 37% | |
| Total Carbohydrates 34g | 12% | |
| Dietary Fiber 4g | 14% | |
| Total Sugars 6g | ||
| Includes 0g Added Sugars | 0% | |
| Protein 15g | 30% | |
| Vitamin D 0mcg | 0% | |
| Calcium 320mg | 25% | |
| Iron 1.6mg | 9% | |
| Potassium 510mg | 11% | |
| * The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice. | ||
I have created a draft of new nutrition summary (User:Xeverything11/nutrition facts label and User:Xeverything11/nutrition facts label/testcases) (see right for example of frozen lasagna) and I am proposing as a new tenplate under the name Template:Nutrition summary new.
It will have a updated format (designed in 2016, required for new labels in products since 2020/2021). This existing template is based on older pre-2016 format.
Users can simply enter the macros and it will calculate the calories and daily values for you.
Could you share the thoughts on this proposal? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 07:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Additionally, if no one replies in 7 days, I'll create this new template. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 07:53, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Xeverything11! If you can make this collapsible, I have no objection to this. I think collapsibility is important since nutrition summaries can get big and take up valuable page real estate, which often messes up formatting (especially on desktop). I also know that having uncollapsed nutrition summaries can be bad for individuals with eating disorders and related conditions, and I want to make sure these people have access to the cookbook. I would personally rather not include nutrition summaries at all for these two reasons, but I do realize that they may be very helpful for some individuals—as a result, I think making them collapsible is a reasonable compromise. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:04, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I made this template collapsed by default. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- Great, thank you for making that change! This is fine by me. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- I made this template collapsed by default. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 15:14, 24 November 2024 (UTC)
- This proposal is sensible, though I wonder how easy it would be easy to translate this to other wikis should that be needed. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:23, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Nutrition Facts | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 servings per recipe | ||||
| Serving size | 3 pretzels (28g) | |||
| Calories | Per serving 109
|
Per recipe 326
| ||
| % DV* | % DV* | |||
| Total Fat | 0.5g | 1% | 1.5g | 2% |
| Saturated Fat | 0g | 0% | 0g | 0% |
| Trans Fat | 0g | 0g | ||
| Cholesterol | 0mg | 0% | 0mg | 0% |
| Sodium | 400mg | 17% | 1200mg | 52% |
| Total Carb. | 23g | 8% | 69g | 25% |
| Dietary Fiber | 2g | 7% | 6g | 21% |
| Total Sugars | 1g | 3g | ||
| Incl. Added Sugars | 0g | 0% | 0g | 0% |
| Protein | 3g | 6% | 9g | 18% |
| Vitamin D | 0mcg | 0% | 0mcg | 0% |
| Calcium | 10mg | 1% | 30mg | 2% |
| Iron | 1.2mg | 7% | 3.6mg | 20% |
| Potassium | 90mg | 2% | 270mg | 6% |
| * The % Daily Value (DV) tells you how much a nutrient in a serving of food contributes to a daily diet. 2,000 calories a day is used for general nutrition advice. | ||||
- I have created another draft, see User:Xeverything11/nutrition label double column and User:Xeverything11/nutrition label double column/testcases. In additional to proposed new standard summary, I am also proposing this new double column nutrition summary. FDA requires double column layout in products that have two or three servings. These products "could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings". This proposed double-column template is intended to be used in recipes with 2 or 3 servings. The proposed standard summary is intended to be in recipes with 4 or more servings, or single servings. See example on right.
- What are your thoughts, in addition to proposed standard summary, on proposed dual-column layout of nutrition summary? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- To be honest, I'm not sure how beneficial it is to have two columns since it's slightly cramped and hard to parse visually. What are your thoughts on the specific benefits of having the two columns? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
- Some people consume multiple servings of food that normally have two or three servings in one sitting, so the second column is benefitical.
- For instance (see right), a serving of pretzels has 109 calories and there are 3 servings. When you consume all servings in one sitting, you would consume 326 calories. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 21:12, 25 November 2024 (UTC)
Given the positive feedback and support from contributors, I am creating these templates and after that, I am deprecating the existing template. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:07, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- I have created these templates: Template:Nutrition summary new and Template:Nutrition summary new/2c; and deprecated the old template: Template:Nutrition Summary. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 27 November 2024 (UTC)