< Wikibooks:Reading room
ArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
DiscussionsAssistanceRequests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project in general. For proposals for improving Wikibooks, see the Proposals reading room.

A question about Shelf:Electronic games

In the description of the shelf it’s written:

Books on this shelf deal with electronic games: games that employ electronics to create an interactive system with which a player can play. Video games are the most common form of electronic game today, and for this reason the terms are often mistakenly used synonymously. Books include information on the cultural significance of specific electronic games, and application of electronic games as learning and education tools. Games in a series should be part of the same book. Wikibooks is not for walkthroughs and strategy guides—use StrategyWiki instead.

And in wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks#Wikibooks_is_not_for_video_game_strategy_guides, it’s written:

Wikibooks is not for video game strategy guides and walk-throughs. Walk-throughs and strategy guides for video games are not acceptable instructional materials for, and do not belong on Wikibooks. However, other books about video games, such as scholarly analysis of video games or guides on the design of video games, are allowed here. One place for writing strategy guides is StrategyWiki.

My question is: if I want to write a book about villagers in Minecraft or a Minecraft mod, am I allowed to? And if I want to write a book about the history of a Minecraft server (like it’s players, it’s bases, etc), am I allowed to? It’s written that games in the same series must be in the same book, but this also suggests that you can’t have more than one book about one game but some games have more thank enough information for several books and maybe even deserve their own shelf (in the future when there are several books of course). Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 08:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the side where this is not allowed on our project, unfortunately. Our policy states, in relation to video games that are allowed: "other books about video games, such as scholarly analysis of video games or guides on the design of video games". I don't believe writing a history page on a Minecraft server, for example Hypixel or McCentral, corresponds to WB policy (scholarly: "involving or relating to serious academic study") - there is no real scholarly study of Minecraft servers, is there? As for writing about Minecraft mods, this might fall under "video game strategy guides".
Though, other opinions are welcome... but this is my personal take. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Atcovi:, thanks for the reply! While I agree that there is no real scholarly analysis of a Minecraft server, in my opinion it has cultural significance (assuming it’s a server with many players that has existed for years of course). And about the mods it’s a bit ambiguous in my opinion - there’s a mod called computercraft which adds programmable computers. Is a book about programming in this mod allowed? Also is a book about command blocks in Minecraft allowed because it would be a serious book. There are many books about state goes for board games, and I get that board games are considered intellectual and video games not but they also have a large cultural significance. -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 14:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I very strongly believe that the history a specific Minecraft server is out of scope. Many similar things have been deleted before usually under the "not a webhost" criteria actually. That's because they are of no more significance than, say, your personal achievements in Pokemon Go or your holidays after the last 10 years. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion video games have a huge cultural significance and are underrepresented in Wikibooks. While the history of a Minecraft server might be a bit out of scope (I still think it would be nice especially since there are entire YouTube channels dedicated to preserving the history of a Minecraft server, mostly anarchy servers), I think Wikibooks should start allowing strategy guides for video games especially since strategy guides for board games are allowed. That kind of content would grow quickly an I think it’s a wasted potential of Wikibooks. Also Wikimedia foundation seeks to be a collection of all human knowledge, and it won’t be complete without this. -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 11:55, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
As it seems to fit under "learning objectives", might I suggest you look into Wikiversity? There also is a wikiversity:minecraft page on Wikiversity where you may add histories of Minecraft servers under it. I believe here your contributions will be more accepted within WV rather than WB, judging from this discussion and WB:What is Wikibooks?. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 18:35, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Atcovi:, thank you very much for the reply! I looked in to Wikiversity a bit, and while in What Wikiversity is not it’s not anything that forbids that sort of content, in What is Wikiversity it’s written: "However, if it's suitable for a textbook, it's best to add it at Wikibooks". It’s a bit confusing for me because my logic tells that Wikiversity is for academic resources and Wikibooks is for other books. It’s kinda weird that Wikibooks has stricter rules. -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 15:32, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Btw, to everyone out there, if you would like to reply I would greatly appreciate if you typed {{ping|ElfSnail123}} that way it will notify me. Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 19:50, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

┌───────────────────┘
 @ElfSnail123: Some snippets of history might help put the policies into perspective. I wasn't here yet when either of these things happened.

  • Because Wikibooks came down against original research —so I was told, years ago— those Wikibookians who wanted to do those sorts of things went off and founded Wikiversity. This seems an overly simplistic creation story for Wikiversity; I suspect it may be approximately true as far as it goes, but once they actually went off to create another wikimedian sister, the new sister broke new ground in the on-going process of self-invention. I've never properly understood Wikiversity, tbh; I "get" Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and Wikinews, on a sort of spectrum, but then Wikiversity doesn't fit into that scheme at all. Their project documentation has never helped me much, either, though I feel some glimmer of understanding from this item at What Wikiversity is not: "[Wikiversity is not a] static project: Every day brings new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing things. Wikiversity will continue to change and develop to meet the needs of the Wikiversity community." Although there are some Wikibookians here also involved at Wikiversity (I'm not one of them), the Wikibooks institutional notion of Wikiversity is still "the place where they'll take original research that doesn't belong here", and I've the impression we've sometimes annoyed the good folks at Wikiversity by sending some of our rejected materials thataway from here that don't belong there either.
  • Jimmy Wales came to Wikibooks (so I was told) a few years into the Wikibooks project and pronounced from on high that, henceforth, Wikibooks would not accept anything that could be put on StrategyWiki. The account I read indicated some resentment of this, and noted that Jimmy had more sway here in the early days. I've looked about in our archives on this one, and it looks like it may be a bit more complicated than that. Like, there was a suggestion that the Foundation had a part in it because some of the materials hosted here in the early days were perceived —or perhaps I mean claimed— to maybe threaten our non-profit status. Here is a discussion that went on in 2007 (which to me is still ancient history), on what at the time was called the Staff Lounge though later became the reading room:
Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2007/June#Removal of Videogame Guides

--Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth adding that Jimbo Wales himself seemed to have initiated the policy with this edit here: Special:Diff/434945 "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals" which became "Wikibooks is not for video game strategy guides". And with Special:Diff/468012, talking about "game walkthroughs and manuals", he claimed "The issue here is not about me not liking them, the issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization which was approved as such by application to the US Government based on a particular charter of operations, and we have NO CHOICE but to follow that charter. If we expanded the mission of Wikibooks to include things which are outside the scope of our charter, we would lose our tax exempt status and place the entire project in peril, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and everything else."
But I can't understand how It is inconsistent with the charter, and this hasn't been brought up as far as I'm aware. We have extensive guides to board games at Shelf:Recreational activities. This includes Chess, Chess Strategy, and Chess Opening Theory, all books with considerable amounts of strategy for a recreational game. So how come does making a game electronic suddenly make it incompatible with the charter? If I was to write the book Computer chess strategy would that not be allowed? As Mr. Spock would say "Highly illogical, captain". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:16, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps the distinction is that chess isn't owned by a particular company. This however would seem to raise concerns over wiibook Monopoly. --00:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pi zero (talk • contribs)
Well I think that's unlikely as the distinction from the onset was for video games. No mentions of other types of games were made in either of his edits, or later on. I would note that he mentions that "They belong at Wikia, or a generic wiki host"; Wikia, now known as Fandom, is a commercial wiki platform that Wales founded and was deeply involved with; unfortunately this suggests a rather obvious possible conflict of interest, although perhaps it is merely coincidental. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 01:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, the person who first recounted those events to me rather implied Jimmy's motives were suspect. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Well whatever the motives, looking through the diffs it did cause a certain amount of consternation at the time; I feel this was mainly due to the somewheat artificial distinction between video games and other types of games. If there had been a blanket prohibition of books concerning games this would have been a lot more understandable, but this was never the case, so the policy felt illogical. So we've inherited a somewhat confused policy in regard to video game books generally being discouraged. Personally I think its a great shame, as it may have helped Wikibooks maintain a more active and vibrant community. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:30, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
That's been remarked on, over the years, that people could get very interested in these subjects, which is also presumably why they are also likely targets for a site with a profit motive.

Taking the matter from a crowdsourcing perspective, we don't want a book that's substantially a pile of proprietary information — and a commercially marketed electronic game is usually going to be just that, a vast complex of tactical details all specifically programmed in by the proprietor. Thus, a walkthrough for such a game is going to simply describe details the proprietor programmed in one by one. That's kind of like a page-by-page paraphrase of an entire copyrighted book. And, even if the game is open-source, the content of a walkthrough is arguably just a different form of the source code.

So there really are some difficulties here that, in practice, are much more likely to pertain to electronic games than to other types of games. Which is not to say that "no electronic-game walkthroughs or strategy guides" is necessarily the best way to describe what the policy ought to be saying. And we would like to work out a type of book that meets our objectives, doesn't lend itself to turning into a paraphrase of source-code, but does harness some of that fan enthusiasm. We do, after all, have featured book Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that its something that might need caution. But you can go on StrategyWiki and create a walkthrough for any video game you like, without obvious problems; so perhaps potential pitfalls of copyright are not as onerous as you might think. Whether propritary systems should be described is an interesting question, although they do exist on Wikibooks, such as C Sharp Programming; C# is mostly a proprietary language (the license is fairly liberal, but it belongs to Microsoft). --Jules (Mrjulesd) 22:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the replies, I really didn’t expect such a long discussion. While I agree that walkthrough of a video game would require many screenshots and would be problematic because of copyright, I really don’t see why making a strategy guide for Starcraft (just an example) is different from making a strategy guide for monopoly. Also, because wikimedia wants to be a complete collection of all human knowledge, it doesn’t make sense for me that they direct you to a project that is not run by wikimedia (strategywiki). Also, going back to the history of a Minecraft server (I think I used Minecraft to much in this discussion, kinda makes it look like that’s the only game I know), I think that would fit in scholarly analysis since it’s about the culture of that sever. Also, it would involve going through documentations videos of youtubers, and putting all the information together in one book. Returning to strategy guides, it disappointed me quite a bit when I saw that they are not allowed, because I planned to create a book about the different creatures in ARK (those creatures in real life, if it’s a page about a T-Rex, so a chapter about T-Rexes in general, information about this creature in the game, and useful information about fighting and/or taming this creature and also how it can be used). I hope this makes it clear why I started this discussion in first place. Now that I know that video game strategies where not only allowed in the past, but where also written before they got deleted I really don’t know what should be done with those ideas. -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Also just curious, does Archive bot archive the discussions 60 days after the post was initially written or 60 days after the last reply was written? Thanks in advance, -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 13:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElfSnail123: After the most recent reply, I believe. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pi zero: Excuse me, I didn’t quite get what you were trying to say. -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
@ElfSnail123: It's my impression that the archive bot judges the date of a section by the latest date anywhere in the section. The bot doesn't look at the revision history of the page; it's possible, last I knew, to "spike" a thread so it won't be archived for a long, long time by putting a future date in it. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:47, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
I see, thank you very much! -ElfSnail123 (discuss • contribs) 16:03, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for getting in here late. I just noticed this post and wanted to leave some of my thoughts on this topic, in case they are useful to others.
Increasingly games are used in school environments as a teaching tool. I’m not sure if this justifies their inclusion here or not.
As for copyright and images, GameFAQs made it big off of user submitted .txt files back in the day. Of course modern standards are higher, but there are a surprising number of developers willing to share gameplay screenshots to Wikimedia Commons, OTRS ticket and all. There is also a genre of guides which omit spoilers, which may be more likely to omit information that may be problematic.
Furthermore there are a number of free and open source games where (Given a compatible license), this issue of copyright becomes a moot point. The authors of books like 0 A.D. shouldn’t have to preface their book with a disclaimer about the issue if they want to contribute original content for the betterment of Wikibooks as a project.
Finally, I believe such guides could be a draw to Wikibooks, just like how school libraries add comics and graphic novels to their collections in hopes that otherwise reluctant readers will migrate to other topics in their collections.
In short, I believe such guides should be allowed on a trial basis. If it doesn’t work out, Wikibooks can always go back to the way things were.
As a somewhat related sidenote - There is technically a distinction between a strategy guide and a walkthrough, though they are often used interchangeably, and indeed are often combined into the same document. A walkthrough is fairly often a straightforward guide through a game from start to finish. Strategy guides are a different, because some games have many different approaches to play. That is to say you could have a strategy guide for Chess, but not a walkthrough. I would assume that a Strategy Guide has more educational value than a plain walkthrough.
--Mbrickn (discuss • contribs)
@ElfSnail123, Atcovi, QuiteUnusual, Pi zero, Mrjulesd, Mbrickn:, pinging all users who participated in this discussion (hope I didn’t miss anybody). I stumbled across a proposal for a new project called Wikigames (the page in meta is called Wikigames (2), it tells that this message has too many links so I had to remove it.) that will include strategy guides as well. I was going to add my username to the list of people interested, but then I decided to check if this info could fit into wikibooks. I agree that walkthroughs would be a bit problematic but I think that strategy guides are fine especially because there are strategy guides for board games so why shouldn’t there be strategy guides for video games? In my opinion video game strategy guides should be allowed in wikibooks or at least in another wikimedia project (maybe wikigames). -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 16:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
You mean this proposal meta:Wikigames (2), correct? --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Exactly -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Looking at that Meta proposal, I see a compelling reason to allow some of those strategy game books here. I think we open a new discussion on Proposals for that though. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard:, do you plan to submit this proposal or should I do this? Also, in your opinion , which game strtegy guides should fit here and which in wikigames? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: I think it's best if you start the proposal, then it would be easy for us to find out what exactly you have in mind. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard:, I know that a lot of time has passed, but I opened a new discussion on proposals for this. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (discuss • contribs) 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
To add to this, would a Guide on setting up a Minecraft server (server administration) be considered valid material for WikiBooks? It's not an actual gameplay guide but is related to it. [Please ping in replies] BEANS X2 (discuss • contribs) 13:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@BEANS X2: That looks fine to me, as it's the discussion of a piece of software. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 20:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Quickbooks Online Book?

Can I create a book on how to use Quickbooks Online-a cloud-based accounting software? Would this topic be alllowed? Thank you. Starlord1990 (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starlord1990: I think it's fine. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 08:51, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
You will need to be cautious to avoid copyright material. For example, you won't be able to use screenshots of the software. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 13:48, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

'Reading Room' is not a good label for this area. 'Forum' is better

I realize that the label 'Reading room' plays on the metaphor of library and books, but it does not accurately describe this part of the Wiki.

I would label this area as a 'Forum' -- a public place for discussion and (in some cases) deliberation.

This is just my opinion and suggestion and I leave it to others on what to do with it.

(I was going to put this comment in the 'Discussion' tab for 'Reading Room' but I do not have edit privileges for that page.)

--Russell Cameron Thomas (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment Here are names for a common discussion area on different wikimedia sisters. Some projects have a single name for all the central stuff, while others may slpit off a few or many functions into pages named differently; it's a tough call which other names are worth noting.
sister discussion other stuff
Wikibooks Reading room (12)
previously: Staff lounge
Wikimedia Commons Village pump (3) Help desk ; Administrators' noticeboard (4) ; Community portal (+1)
Wikidata Project chat
Wikinews Water cooler (5) AAA (Admin Action Alerts)
Wikipedia Village pump (6) Help desk, Reference desk, Questions, etc.
Wikiquote Village pump Reference desk (+1)
Wikisource Scriptorium
Wiktionary Beer parlour Tea room, Grease pit ; Information desk, Etymology scriptorium
Wikiversity Colloquium
Wikivoyage Travellers' pub Tourist office
My own opinion of some of these: "Beer parlour" is a tad too eccentric; "Colloquium" is a bit academically snobbish (and I say this as someone with a PhD); "Village pump" is, meh; "Water cooler" has the merit of distinguishing itself from "Village pump" but, otherwise, meh; and "Scriptorium" is pretty cool. For whatever perspective any of this offers on what name would work best here. I'm not, btw, personally filled with boundless enthusiasm for "forum". Brand recognition (i.e., sticking with a name that's been in use for a long time) has some advantage, though it oughtn't prevent all change. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:54, 20 January 2021 (UTC) [Later added Wikivoyage, as suggested below. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)]
Comment Would like to add the Wikivoyage term "Travellers' pub", since it invokes the feeling of an informal gathering. Perhaps "Book club" or "Reader's circle" or something similar would be appropriate? I also agree that Scriptorium would be cool. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 10:01, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
"Forum" seems to be too generic, I'd prefer a name that suits our project well - which is why I would agree to "Scriptorium". The term fits our project and is also easier to reference the "Scriptorium" than the "Reading Room" (shorter word, basically). —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 14:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
I've added Wikivoyage (oops); indeed, "Travellers' pub" is pretty good. I suppose Wikivoyage's "Destinations" page is somewhat analogous to our Wikibooks Stacks.

One of the difficulties with "Reading room" might be that some libraries use the term "reading room" to describe a somewhat different facility than others do. Imho Scriptorium doesn't fit, because properly a scriptorium is a room where scribes go to write — kind of the opposite problem from "Reading room" which, in many libraries, is a place readers go to read.

At opportunity, perhaps we should hunt down the discussion that accompanied changing "Staff lounge" to "Reading room". --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

There's "Common room"; possible drawbacks that come to mind are maybe-somewhat-imperfect fit to the function, and vague similarity to the name of a different sister (Commons). Still, having thought of it I'm finding it hard to dismiss as it has a certain something. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Break Out Area; Coffee Room (my local library calls it "Book Rest Café"); Creche?!; Editors' Meet... Maybe we should run a "competition?" QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Pi zero: You're looking for this. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh! Thanks, Leaderboard. Skimming, the one point I see that doesn't seem to have been much remarked this time around is that the name "Reading room" helps to keep everyone's minds focused clearly on books. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 19:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event

Wikimania's logo.

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantsTemplate:Atwikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (discuss • contribs) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Update about user:Pi zero

Obituary: n:Wikinews mourns loss of volunteer John Shutt
Pi zero died yesterday, his mother and his sister confirmed. His account has been globally locked, and stweards have said to remove local privs, if need be.
acagastya  💭 04:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Acagastya: Thanks for the update. This is (from my memory) without precedent on Wikibooks; however, I've filed a request on Meta to remove admin rights, because bureaucrats cannot remove admin rights here. @QuiteUnusual: with respect to interface admin. I do not see a need to remove reviewer from him out of respect for his work (the problem with keeping admin is that it can cause confusion). Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
For the benefit of other readers confused on what happened: he suffered a (sudden) heart attack. From acagastya on IRC: "His mother, on the phone call said he had a heart attack and head trouble breathing, was rushed to a hospital, went into coma, and later died." Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 09:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Leaderboard: I had requested his account to be globally locked -- a standard procedure for deceased Wikimedians. If you would to keep his privs, that is all right.
acagastya  💭 09:48, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I am shocked and saddened. @Acagastya:, if you are in touch with his family, and if you think it appropriate, please do pass on my condolences. We've worked together here for many, many years and I will miss his contributions and conversation. I'm sure the whole Wikibooks community feels the same. In terms of rights, I agree the +sysop should be removed due to the confusion it could cause, the other rights can remain I think. QuiteUnusual (discuss • contribs) 10:12, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Sure, @QuiteUnusual:, will do that.
acagastya  💭 10:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm similarly shocked and saddened by this news. During the two years I've contributed here hes been a constant support here, always helping me with whatever I've needed. His contributions to this project are immeasurable. My deepest condolences to his family and friends. I shall miss his conversations with me, its not going to be the same without him. He had such an intelligent outlook, it always stimulated me. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
I was equally shocked with this news, although we don't have much interactions, but every one are pleasant. I am very saddened to hear this and thanks Pi zero for your very invaluable work here and elsewhere on Wikimedia. Rest in Peace. Camouflaged Mirage (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘
 I would like to add that this obviously deeply affects Wikinews. They have created an article at n:Wikinews mourns loss of volunteer John Shutt. Well I knew he was smart, but I had no idea about his achievements really. So I thought I would share this with everyone. I'm a bit shocked about how young he was. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

This is terrible news. I've known Pi Zero ever since 2015 when I was still relatively new here. Horrible news... he was a very intelligent and kind person - my condolences. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 04:50, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Truly unfortunate. He was a talented and hardworking individual. --Mbrickn (discuss • contribs) 13:59, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I think it's only a mild exaggeration to say that he was single-handedly keeping Wikibooks and Wikinews moving forward. Even when he and I disagreed, it was always respectfully and he had a vision of what should happen next. In addition to the fact that this is a personal loss for his loved ones and those of us who had a relationship with him, it's a blow to the viability of the Wikimedia Foundation's two most-struggling projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I was changing user rights for a WMF staff at MediaWiki.org today (in the west coast) and then looking at the user rights log I was quite shocked to learn about Pi zero’s passing. This is a huge loss for both wikibooks and at wikinews. He was a major presence to both projects, and has put in so much time and work improving the quality of content. My condolences to his family, colleagues and friends — he is deeply missed. Tropicalkitty (discuss • contribs) 02:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest

Hello. Please help to choose a design concept for the logo of the new Wikifunctions wiki. Voting starts today and will be open for 2 weeks. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at Meta-Wiki. Thank you! --Quiddity (WMF)

01:45, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

This article is issued from Wikibooks. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.