User talk:Kittycataclysm

Talk Page Archives
2022	2023

To kitty kat

can you please stop doing what you are doing by removing what people edited and adding your own false recipes it is really not helping 41.116.238.216 (discuss) 11:19, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

No idea what recipies your adding, 41.116. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 16:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you please be more specific? I don't know what you are referring to. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I followed your edits it led to me burning my kitchen i followed your citations the led to a virus that costs me $200 for me to repair 41.116.216.82 (discuss) 18:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Wikibooks editors are not liable for something you did. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

are you kitty Kat sir or mam 41.116.248.36 (discuss) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

41.x, why would that matter? --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 08:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop answering questions that are not directed to you mister or whatever you are 41.116.195.45 (discuss) 06:42, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Remember to be careful with links, I feel as though this should be known already by somebody using the internet. ^{— L10nM4st3r} / _{ROAR at me!} 09:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Shut up boob face 41.116.198.58 (discuss) 15:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Redirect I created was deleted by you

Hi Kittycataclysm,

I just checked my watchlist and I see that you deleted a redirect I created yesterday. I would like to apologize for creating additional work for you. My intention was to help, not to increase your work load.

I will refrain from making any more changes to the cookbook from now on. Sorry to have troubled you. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech Please don't worry about it! It's not a big issue, and you are welcome to continue contributing. It's a learning process :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: Thank you for your gracious reply.

Since we have not interacted before I would like to explain why I posted this in the first place. I have been part of the Wikimedia movement since 2007 (yes, I am ancient:), first at enwp exclusively until about 2012. After I was shunned from enwp in 2017 I have participated quite extensively in other sister-projects, perhaps a bit less enthusiastically than my first 10 years.

Since I joined the movement I have had trouble with my contributions being deleted, not reverted or undone, but deleted by admins. Many of these deletion were carried out "silently", as in without telling me about the deletion. I have therefore become very sensitive about this. Deleted contributions disappear from the contribution page of participants, so for someone who only participates sporadically and uses their contribution page to refresh memory this is a real issue, especially if many of the contributions they make end up being deleted without notifications.

I hope I am making sense? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I can definitely understand how that would be frustrating! If helpful, I can make sure to alert upon page deletions. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks again for the gracious offer. I just tried to explain the way things look like from the POV of a low-key, low-input, good-faith contributor, but please do not go out of your way to treat me differently than others are treated at WB. I will continue to try and help whenever I get a chance. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 15:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry

Kittycat sorry for everything i said your editing helped a lot please forgive 41.116.190.118 (discuss) 12:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

"Zuppa toscana", not "zuppa Toscana"

Hi, your move of the "zuppa toscana" page to "zuppa Toscana" is incorrect, please read these three conversations: wikipedia:Talk:Pecorino romano#Requested move 19 November 2023, wikipedia:Talk:Pecorino romano#Requested move 19 November 2023, wikipedia:Talk: Caffè americano#Requested move 19 November 2023; the title case page states: "When using title case, all words are capitalized, except for minor words (typically articles, short prepositions, and some conjunctions) that are not the first or last word of the title." ("toscano" is an adjective). JackkBrown (discuss • contribs) 16:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi @JackkBrown. Wikibooks is not Wikipedia, and its stylistic conventions do not necessarily apply here. As I noted on your talk page, the stylistic conventions of the cookbook here are such that recipe titles are in title case, with English (not Italian) capitalization conventions and major words capitalized. It is worth noting that each book here may have different stylistic conventions, but this is how titles should work in the cookbook. Thanks —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm: great! Forgive me. JackkBrown (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Free Knowledge Culture Calendar

first physical galley proof

It largely unclear to me what clarifications you’re asking for, and I feel a bit pressured, to be honest. (Like I need to guard my content against deletionists or something.) Early on after I started publishing here, I tried to document the vision I was working towards concisely, yet accurately and in detail, on the main talk page for any potential co-authors. Did you notice that at all?...

I’m trying to do a kind of innovative history book that is easy to engage, with bite-sized information that fits between two sips of coffee, e.g. to be consumed daily at breakfast or as login MOTDs. I feel like the biggest chunk of work and research is done and it’s provisionally already somewhat functional: You might not realize at first glance how much work it is to find a topic/story for each day of the year. While quality of the topics could surely be improved here and there, this work has reached a provisional conclusion. – Now all that remains is to write the stories, and that should be much more straightforward in comparison and easier to participate in.

For an idea of one thing this can be, to the right there’s a photo of the first paper prototype, e.g. for the breakfast table. You are very welcome to leave point notes on individual stories, find the single best media piece for further study of a topic, work on good complementary illustrations, flesh out a story, give any actionable feedback, or come up with a better title.--Reseletti (discuss • contribs) 19:07, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Reseletti and thanks for the information! I queried the book because it seemed mostly abandoned for over a year, the handful of random pages I clicked on only had one sentence each, and I didn't fully understand the concept based on the talk page. It seems like a lot of the pages still need to be fleshed out (I imagine maybe a paragraph each to reasonably form a book?) Just out of curiosity, do you plan on resuming the work on the book? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:11, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Also I like the little feature to navigate to today's page! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:12, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Champorado (chocolate porridge) Philippine cuisine

I added Champorado. I didn't copy paste it from a ready made recipe. I asked my mother on how to cook it. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jay Bolero yes that recipe is totally fine, as is Cookbook:Pinakbet. But, where did you get Cookbook:Lechon Kawali (Chili-Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly)? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I accidentally saw that recipe. It was originally named Chili Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly (Lechon Kawali).

I moved the name into

Lechon Kawali (Chili Honey Glazed Filipino Pork Belly) Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:26, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I didn't make the recipe of Lechon Kawali. It already existed in the Cookbook. I just improved it and placed it in the list of Filipino cuisine. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:27, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

By the way, I made the Cookbook:Calamansi.

Calamansi is one of the important ingredient in Filipino cuisine. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Great, thank you :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The other Lechon Kawali

The last Lechon Kawali you marked as copyvio is not actually a copyvio. It has no Glazing needed. It does not need an airfryer to be cooked. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

This one is not a copyvio Cookbook:Lechon Kawali (Filipino Crispy Fried Pork Belly) Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

That recipe didn't violate any copyright. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:50, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Chili Honey Glazed is the one that violated a copyright Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The two versions of Lechon Kawali recipes are different from each other. That last one is not copy pasted from an existing recipe. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 07:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@Jay Bolero you can see my response on your talk page. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:06, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

My two books on Wikibooks

I wrote two books on Wikibooks entitled Bikol and the other one is Learn Baybayin. You might want to review them. Jay Bolero (discuss • contribs) 08:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

AuthorsAndContributorsBot

Hi,

I have stumbled upon this bot which seems to be inactive. However, it also seems to have released its source code. Can I run this bot to update the authors lists? I will create a separate account for this. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for missing this @D1n05aur5 4ever! Are you asking whether you're allowed to create a new bot account with the source code in order to fix the inactive bot? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I meant. D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't see why not! @JackPotte @Leaderboard I know you both run bot accounts, so is there anything they should know before doing this? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Kittycataclysm: mainly

• test the bot first - the Beta Cluster or test wiki are good places
• ask for the appropriate permissions so that it does not bother patrollers. This would normally be autoreviewer if the bot is low-volume, or the bot right otherwise.

Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello, actually last year I had launched User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/source_code on four pages (ex: https://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=World_Cultures/Authors_%26_Contributors&diff=prev&oldid=4285894) and it worked fine, but I've stopped because it needed to maintain User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/blacklist and User:AuthorsAndContributorsBot/List of books, or even better: to make them dynamic. JackPotte (discuss • contribs) 07:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you very much! What do you mean by maintain the pages or make them dynamic? Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 12:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Sheaf Theory

@Kittycataclysm and @Az1568, I don't quite understand; why was this tagged and deleted? The criterion cited says Abandoned pages displaying intent, but no actual content, but I'd argue there was a decent amount of content in the few deleted pages. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 17:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4! I believe I initially queried it while sorting through old abandoned books because the scope and future of the book were unclear to me, and I couldn't see a way forward for it. It turns out that queried books end up in candidates for speedy deletion after a certain period, which I think is how it eventually got deleted by @Az1568. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep that's correct. The book has appeared largely undeveloped since 2018, and unfortunately, there were no attempts to oppose the initial query left on the book itself, nor were there attempts to expand on its content. --Az1568 (discuss • contribs) 20:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

So how exactly is this reflected in policy? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 14:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @1234qwer1234qwer4! So, I went back to take a look at it. The book consisted of two pages, with no introduction or clarification of scope/aims/educational relevance. It seems to just have been some mathematical definitions with no accompanying educational/instructional material. It was also abandoned for several years. I only intended to query it, but it did seem to meet criteria for deletion at Wikibooks:Deletion policy. Notably, the policy says to "delete stubs that are too narrowly defined or do not have a decent definition of what they are about", which I do think applied to this book as mentioned. It's possible that it should have been a RFD instead of a speedy deletion, but I do think overall it makes sense according to policy. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Miraheze

I am patrolling Miraheze's recent changes and noticed there is username Kittycataclysm in recent changes in that wiki. Did you create this account on that wiki? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 19:46, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Xeverything11. Thanks for asking. No, I do not have a Miraheze account, and I am not active over there. Whoever is operating under the username "Kittycataclysm" there is not me. Since they've copied my entire user page, I assume they are impersonating me for some reason. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking into that account's CentralAuth, it had made a total of 24 edits at the writing - 19 are from Cookbookholic, 3 are from Miraheze Meta, 1 is from Miraheze Login Wiki, and 1 is from Amazing YouTubers Wiki. What is that account doing? Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 07:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

No idea. I'm not going to get involved over there, since this is my home wiki. But, since you have an account there, it might be nice if you could let them know that this person is an impersonator. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:07, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Favonian

Hello. I think you may have blocked the wrong user. A different user made their talk page. Please check their local and global contributions. Thank you for your attention. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Oh gosh, thank you for letting me know—that was a mistake on my part. Should be fixed now! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Jumarkese

I just want to ask, why you deleted my page "Jumarkese" on Wikibooks? And how I can revive my page? Jumark27 (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Wanted to say thanks for all the work you do on Cookbooks. Have a good one! :) Aekrinine (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, that's very kind! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:06, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Talk page cluttered

Your talk page is cluttered. I recommend implementing archiving. 98.115.164.53 (discuss) 17:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

They are free to do what they want with their talk page (as long as it's under 2 MB). --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 07:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Incompelete Recipe..

You have misnested bold formatting. When using ''' you can't have soft-line-feeds in between the ''' markup. If you want a line-feed use
, and removes the soft-line-feeds. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 13:39, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi @ShakespeareFan00 and thanks for reaching out! I think there was a misunderstanding of what I wanted the template to look like—it looked correct based on the preview after making several adjustments to the template, but the quotation marks ended up in a sloppy location. At any rate, I think I understand what you were trying to do, and I've fixed the markup positioning. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:00, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The script I use to identify Lints also note that you have <strike>...</strike> tags in this talk page, These are nominally deprecated. Please consider using {{strike/top}} and {{strike/end}} in preference.

ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Lints..

You may be interested in helping look for unclosed italics elsewhere -

I made a list of everything with missing tags in ns0: https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/4407/books.txt

The more that can be cleaned up the better.. ShakespeareFan00 (discuss • contribs) 18:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Sderot

Hi, I have noticed your edit in October 7th Massacre/Sderot. Could you please explain why you found in necessary to remove 2,462 bytes of content? I have noticed that you have not only changed the style and the grammar, but have also removed many details that would help the reader understand the events better. Thanks in advance, -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 08:46, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever—I am happy to explain my edits! They were based on the following:

• Style: Wikibooks uses a neutral educational style, and NPOV is important. The initial style of the chapter was less like a neutral informational text and more like storytelling, with embellishment and attention drawn to certain details in a more literary way that evokes specific images and emotions. I removed content that I felt detracted from the desired NPOV style or that I felt was otherwise distracting, etc.
• Caution: Because this book revolves around a very recent and polarizing event, the surrounding conflict of which is still ongoing and the details of which are still hotly discussed, I think it is especially important to aim for neutrality.
• Iteration: Because Wikibooks is a collaborative project, books develop from an iterative process to refine the content—it's not just a place to self-publish one's own book. You contributed the initial version, I iterated on it, and so on.

If you have specific questions about specific changes I made, I am happy to explain and discuss those as well. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Kittycataclysm. Thank you very much for the the detailed response. Maybe I haven’t made that clear in the initial message, but I didn’t ask why was it necessary to iterate on the text. I asked why it was necessary to remove such an extensive amount of details. I don’t feel like I have written the original text with “embellishment and attention drawn to certain details in a more literary way that evokes specific images and emotions”. Of course describing a massacre does evoke emotions, however I don’t see this as a reason not to describe the events of October 7th as they happened. -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 13:36, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Gotcha. In terms of removing content, I removed details when I felt they met one or more of the following criteria:

• Overly wordy/inefficient/clunky language (e.g. "They ran to the shelter, which was locked" --> "They ran to a locked shelter")
• Indicative of subjective/non-neutral experience that is not necessary to understand the larger events that took place (e.g. "He understood on the first alarm that something isn’t right", "She was used to alarms", "it took her a while to understand what is going on", "“We behaved like in the story of Anne Frank”", "When she understood the electricity won’t come back", "The kids panicked and even told “We don't want to die, we are too little”", etc).
• Excessive detail that is not necessary to understand the larger events that took place ("her husband, who works as a warden, had to go to work", "elderly people, including Holocaust survivors", etc).
• Loaded language (e.g. "slaughtered" vs "killed", "terrorist" vs "attacker"/"assailant", etc)

In some cases, I reworded things in a way that made them more concise, which decreased the overall content. Whenever I assess a sentence, paragraph, etc., I always evaluate its purpose and its effect, as well as whether it accomplishes the aims of the book and the Wikibooks project.

Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I have a few problems with it:

• About the locked shelter part, I think the best way to word it would be “they ran to the shelter only to find out that it was locked”.
• I don’t understand why the book can’t include the experiences of the witnesses. I would argue that the part saying “She was used to alarms” does indeed help understand the larger events (in that she was used to alarms since she heard many alarms before that). I didn’t really understand why a book on a massacre shouldn’t include these details.
• Again, please elaborate what you mean by “larger events” and by what extent an event has to be “large” in order to be noteworthy.
• Feels for me more like factual language than loaded. I’m not sure why calling terrorists “terrorists” is against NPOV.
• Thanks in advance,-D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 06:08, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@Xania:, what is your opinion on the topic? -08:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi @D1n05aur5 4ever—my apologies for the delayed response! Here are my responses:

• Locked shelter: Here I would ask why you feel that is the best way to word it. I made the change I did in order to convey the key facts (locked shelter) in the most concise and neutral way possible. I'm curious why you don't think it is appropriate.
• Witness experiences: I do think witness experiences can have value here. However, I think they must be used judiciously in order to best serve the purpose and scope of the book—a near infinite number of facts, statements, details, reports, etc could be included from the events, but not all of them need to be included in this book. It is challenging to make a blanket statement about what and how many witness experiences are relevant here, and it must instead be evaluated continuously through revision. I also think it's important to make it obvious that you're citing someone else's perspective when including it (e.g. "they said", "they reported", "according to ***") rather than narrating from their perspective.
• Event and detail inclusion: Again, it's hard to make a blanket statement outright on what details out of the many merit inclusion, and whether something is relevant is typically determined by book scope, revision, and consensus. I would argue that for this book, it doesn't make sense to spend words describing things like what shirt someone happens to be wearing, details related to their everyday life, their detailed personal perceptual experiences, etc.
• Loaded language: It may be helpful to take a look at these resources on loaded language, as well as w:Loaded language for context and overall guidance. Regarding the term "terrorist" specifically, w:Terrorism#Definition may be helpful as well—note its status as a charged and disputed term with strong non-neutral connotations. The term "attacker" still correctly describes the events taking place without inadvertently inserting strong connotations and leaning into political territory.

Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply!

• My problem with “locked shelter” is that it kind of makes it sound as if they knew the shelter was locked when they ran towards it.
• I think I made it clear that I’m citing other people’s perceptive, however if not, I’m willing to edit the text.
• Details about personal lives of people were only included when they helped the reader understand the events. We can’t assume the reader to be familiar with the frequency of alarms in Sderot. That’s why I think it’s necessary to explain that while she was used to alarms, this event was unprecedented. Such details help the reader understand the event better. In my opinion such an unprecedented event such as the October 7th massacre deserves a detailed book describing the events that took place.
• I’m not convinced that the word “terrorist” is a politically loaded word. I still think it’s simply a factual description of them, though the word “attacker” is still technically correct.

Cheers! -D1n05aur5 4ever (discuss • contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

A little advice

Hello, I am currently on working on Cookbook: Honey Mug Cake. Any advice or anything to help? I can't help but feel something is missing from it. Soapyduck (discuss • contribs) 09:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello! I went through and made some edits, which you can see in the revision history. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:20, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Accessibility

The structure you chose for Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II has the unfortunate side effect that people can't link to the first four subsections in ==Procedure==. Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake will take them to the first. Do you have any ideas about how to make these later sections accessible to everyone? WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 06:19, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WhatamIdoing—thanks for checking in! In order to link to a second identical heading, you just use an underscore plus an index. So, to link to the second cake heading, you would use this: Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake_2. Hope this helps! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:10, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That's nice for the few of us who know that trick, but it doesn't help the 99.9999% of readers who aren't experts in MediaWiki's quirks. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not ideal, but it's also the best we can do for now. --SHB2000 (discuss • contribs) 23:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The original structure for the page had no duplicate section headings. Perhaps we should go back to that. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @WhatamIdoing. I definitely understand your concern. However, the changes I made were to bring the recipe into alignment with the recipe template and all other recipes in the Cookbook. It is also a very common current standard for recipe-writing in English. Moreover, I think this kind of linking is actually very simple and very easy to teach/communicate—much more so than some other common MediaWiki features—and it is not unreasonable to expect editors to learn editing tips and tricks like this over time from more experienced users. You asked, and now you know a simple new trick to help with editing :) As an aside, I'm also not sure how often linking to subheadings like this is even used in the Cookbook, so I don't think it's a very big issue at the moment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:29, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps, if the standard recipe template creates accessibility problems for blind readers, we should have a better recipe template.

BTW, I've been editing for about 18 years now, so unlike you, I was around when that "simple new trick" was introduced to MediaWiki. I know how it works. This is a problem for readers, not for me personally. The problem isn't when an editor wants to put a link to the section (which happens on the talk page more often than in the cookbook). Imagine that a reader wants to ask a friend about this recipe. Think about a social media post that says "I'm confused by the directions in Cookbook:Schwarzwälder Kirschtorte (Black Forest Cake) II#Cake ". That won't end up where the reader expected it to go, right? And while people who (like me) have made more than 100K edits at Wikipedia will probably know what to do, a reader is not going to be able to fix it. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 21:27, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing I definitely agree with you that web inaccessibility is a problem! I'm just having a hard time understanding this particular case. I find it hard to imagine someone who is savvy enough to know that you can link to specific subheadings by hashing, but isn't savvy enough to know about the indexing system to modify it. Have you seen this come up as a problem before? At any rate, I've modified the headings here so they are specific enough to not need the indexing. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it happens sometimes. That's one of the reasons why enwiki requires unique section headings. WhatamIdoing (discuss • contribs) 00:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiphilosophers

I saw your comment on Wikiphilosophers. Indeed, the whole idea of it is that people can put their own philosophical ideas on a subpage of their own. I discussed the proposal for the project on Meta-Wiki (see https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikiphilosophers). There it was suggested that the project should first take shape on Wikibooks, if before becoming its own project. Personally, I think a own platform for Wikiphilosophers is also best, but I don't know how else to do it either? I look forward to hearing from you! Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 03:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi @S. Perquin! Thank you, and I read through the discussion you linked. Unfortunately, based on your envisioning of the project, I'm thinking that Wikibooks isn't the best place for it. You can take a look at WB:NOTMETA, and generally Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks? for details. Specifically, Wikibooks is for creating instructional books based on preexisting documented knowledge, which Wikiphilosophers doesn't really match the way you've described it. I'm thinking that if any existing WMF project were to host this, it would be Wikiversity. I'd recommend checking out Wikiversity:What is Wikiversity? and Wikiversity:Research, as well as asking there if your project could have a home there. Hope this is helpful! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! I will post a message in the Colloquium! Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 16:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I have permission to continue working on my project there. I have transferred all the information from Wikibooks to Wikiversity. All pages on Wikiphilosophers can therefore be deleted on Wikibooks! Could you take care of this? Kind regards, S. Perquin (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent—I'm glad to hear your project has found a home! I will delete any residual pages here. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

JLPT Guide/JLPT N5 Grammar (special:diff/4424284)

The edit is partially correct and partially questionable. For example, せんせいい is an obvious typo (せんせい is accurate), and でんしゃ is the correct reading for 電車. However, converting 行（い）きます to いきます can be disputed (this can be considered as simplification, but others may prefer the usage of 行). I'm not sure if the IP editor is a native speaker (the ISP is in the UK), so I think we need to keep an eye on this page. MathXplore (discuss • contribs) 13:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I thought providing furigana for 'to go' might be an oversimplification but it's also there for other basic verbs like 'to eat'. Why is this person rejecting edits on a language they don't speak anyway? It would have taken 2 seconds to verify them with a dictionary. 2A02:C7E:3011:FC00:E1D4:C6B3:2E:3919 (discuss) 15:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you both for the information! Because 1) there is often vandalism by IPs in non-English content and 2) Wikibooks lacks enough users to do detailed vetting, I tend to be very conservative regarding this kind of edit when not accompanied by an explanation in the edit summary. I am happy to restore the initial edit since an explanation has now been provided. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Wrong deletion

hello!I noticed that you deleted the edits I made to Lesson 12 of the Chinese textbook. Please give it back to me， and undo your deletion so I can continue working. 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 05:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @见水思源. I deleted that page because of the following reasons taken together:

1. It seemed very much out of scope with the rest of the book.
2. It was written largely in a non-English language, beyond what would be expected for a language-teaching book.
3. It was created by an anonymous IP.
4. There have been multiple bad page creations for that page.

Could you please explain how your page contributes meaningfully to the book in its current scope? Thanks! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:51, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi, here are my answers :)

1. I don't think it's out of scope, just like Lesson 11 of the book, it's a quoted Chinese text, designed to let students learn how real Chinese people speak

2. This lesson does use a lot of non-English language, but that's because I decided to take a break and wait until the next day to complete it (including the supplementary English part)

3. Like you mentioned, this is indeed created by an anonymous IP. The interesting thing is that this IP is mine, I'm a newcomer, and this is my first time contributing to the wiki. After I sent my work, I realized that I needed to create an account to save my work

4. There is indeed a lot of vandalism on this page, and I saw it. But this doesn't mean that what I wrote is also meaningless text

Like I said, that IP is mine, and I decided to finish my work the next day. But when I opened the page, I found it was deleted. I was angry because I spent a lot of time to finish it. So I hope you can give it back to me and let me finish the unfinished part.

I am new here, which means I don't have a lot of experience, and I look forward to your suggestions on my work, thank you! 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 06:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@见水思源 thank you for clarifying—I have restored the chapter. Please make sure to incorporate it into the rest of the book. For example, please change the chapter title to match the other chapters, include it in the table of contents, and use the same formatting and structure as the other lesson chapters. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

@KittycataclysmI'm glad to see them back, your advice is spot on. I noticed that the chapter headings don't seem to match the main table of contents, I'll make them fit by modifying the title text and body content appropriately。Thank you！ 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

For the whole book, I think I have filled a blank page, and I think after I fill it, this page must be more meaningful than a blank page. 见水思源 (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Seeking to Improve My Project's Formatting

Hi there, I'm currently building Physics Explained Through a Video Game which you recently reviewed. As a question, is the inclusion of numerous video examples for the content I've written (such as for the existing materials in Unit 2 of my book) problematic? I feel that it provides a more intuitive explanation of many of the discussed concepts and may be more engaging for my target audience (high schoolers). However, I'm concerned that it's making the pages overly cluttered.

Aside from this, are there any other ways that I can improve the existing content for the project?

Thank you in advance. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (discuss • contribs) 05:38, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi @TheMonkeyEatsBananas! From my cursory look at the book, the formatting seems generally quite reasonable. I don't have the capacity at the moment to take a detailed look at the specific construction to assess optimization. But, I don't think you have anything to be worried about. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

commons:HotCat

It's normally meant for Commons, but could help you with your categorisation work on this wiki. I don't think we have it as a gadget on this wiki, so just install it on your Commons.js - I could do it for you if you want. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 05:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know about this! I always wondered if there was a way to install it on other wikis. Would you be able to help me with it this time? I've never installed any scripts here before. Thanks again! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, seeing this only now. I see that you have copied the code of HotCat, but I've replaced it with a direct link to HotCat on Commons. This ensures that you always have the latest version on the wiki. Can you check and let me know if you have any issues using that extension? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 19:09, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Leaderboard! Unfortunately, replacing it with the direct link has disabled the tool for me. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 20:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, can you try now (clearing your cache if needed)? Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 04:26, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Yup, it's working again—thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:46, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for butting in here, but I use hotcat a lot on many different projects so was surprised to find out that it is "meant for Commons". Actually IIRC I was/am having trouble using it on commons? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 14:11, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Why did you remove the roadmap in Unicode/Versions?

OK, So why did you remove the roadmap in Unicode/Versions? I should re-add that and people will see the roadmap in this page and on the Unicode site. MatthewtheUnicoder (discuss • contribs) 18:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Biology of the siphonophore

The page biology of the siphonophore was not an accident or test it was to make a page about siphonophores. Please understand to get rid of Query. Atlas Þə Biologist (discuss • contribs) 23:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Chicken à la King recipe change

Hi, regarding [1], I could understand rejecting such a drastic change if someone else had originally posted the recipe, but it's my own recipe (based on my own cooking experience) and no one but you and I have ever even edited the page, so I thought (and still think) it's OK to change it so much. Mahagaja (discuss • contribs) 07:44, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point! I think if it's your recipe, it makes sense to make this change. Cheers! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 12:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

AI

Hi Kittycataclysm, Not sure if you remember me. I was fairly active at enwb for a few months until the beginning of this year IIRC. Any way I came across a page on Meta Future Audiences/Experiments: conversational/generative AI which you may or may not be familiar with. I vaguely remembered discussions in the reading room about the use of AI on this project, so thought you may be interested.

Hope I am not wasting your time. Cheers, Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 14:03, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech thank you for letting me know! I will take a look. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 17:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Level-specific min and max

You added {{query}} to that page, but I have marked it for speedy deletion, since it appears to have been created by a cross-wiki spammer. — JJPMaster (discuss • contribs) 17:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Note: a global sysop has deleted the pages. — JJPMaster (discuss • contribs) 20:00, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Got it, thank you! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 21:19, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pseudo-bot flag

You might want to grant yourself that. JJP_Master (she/they) 00:54, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello I noticed that my comment asking about where I could get english book was unfairly deleted could you help me find clarity. Iyazi babanne (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Iyazi babanne—I'm not sure what you mean. Could you clarify what you're looking for? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:55, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

A drama book Iyazi babanne (discuss • contribs) 05:57, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I recommend taking a look at Shelf:Performing arts. Department:Humanities might also be helpful. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:33, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay let take a look at it

I will tell you if I found it Iyazi babanne (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I've found it thank you very much ♥️♥️ Iyazi babanne (discuss • contribs) 15:19, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for helping me Iyazi babanne (discuss • contribs) 15:21, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Template:Cookbookwelcome

Did you know there is a cookbook-specific template exists at Template:Cookbookwelcome, which was created back in 2005, which is almost 20 years ago? You created another cookbook-specific template, Template:Cookwelcome. Thanks. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:58, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Xeverything11—yes, I am aware of that old template. For historical posterity, I created a new template deliberately instead of changing the old one dramatically to suit my needs. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 19 December 2024 (UTC)

You have been bested

I have officially overtaken you as the most active importer of 2024. You put up a good fight (even though this wasn't a fight in the first place), but nevertheless, I have now reached your level of greatness. You are free to decide how you intend to handle this situation. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:49, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Note on Luna tests

It is preferable that you use User talk:Sandbox for user warnings for any tests of Luna's features rather than your own talk page. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair point! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:10, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That IP range calculator

Following T381138, I have now become the maintainer of the IP range calculator you like. You can find it here. JJP_Master (she/they) 23:10, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the heads-up! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

A merge and unmerge from two years ago

I was browsing through the history merge log when I saw that you merged Cookbook:Chicken Bog into Cookbook:Chicken Bog I, and then promptly reverted it. What happened here exactly? Could I correct it? JJP_Master (she/they) 15:55, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Good question! I can't remember what I was trying to do, but it looks like I didn't succeed at what I wanted based on the log comment. You're just trying to history merge to get Cookbook:Chicken Bog I to have continuity of history? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I figured out your mistake: it outright moved the revisions from the first page to the second, rather than copying them. This would have caused the other two Cookbook:Chicken Bog pages to have incomplete histories. I think the only solution would be to XML import the pre-April 2023 revisions from the first page to the other three, and I'm not sure if that's the best idea, and I am technically unable to do so. JJP_Master (she/they) 16:49, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Undeletion request

I wouldn't be surprised if you expected this, but I'd like to ask you to undelete the subpages of Rotorcraft Fundamentals you just deleted with the summary "Use of copyrighted work without permission. Please read Terms of Use: page needs to be imported for attribution", so that I can do that. JJP_Master (she/they) 19:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Done! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:57, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, this might actually be a rare case where an unmerged transwiki is preferred (this is part of why I stopped calling them "bad transwikis"), since only a small portion of the Wikipedia article (with over 2,000 revisions) was copied over. Importation is generally only needed if the majority of the page is copied across wikis. I'll just leave a null edit providing attribution and add {{Copied}}. JJP_Master (she/they) 21:19, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Reusing Cookbook:8 Desserts in 1 Pan on wikiHow

Hi, I am a user on wikiHow, see wikihow:User:Xeverything11. I would like to create a new recipe on wikiHow. I wanted to let us know if I can give permission to reuse your contributions to this recipe from Wikibooks to wikiHow. I (as a copyright holder) created this recipe on Wikibooks, but you contributed to this recipe.

If not, I'll use the revision before you contributed since I was the only author.

Wikibooks uses CC-BY-SA 4.0 while wikiHow uses CC-BY-NC-SA 3.0, which both licenses are incompatible due to ShareAlike conditions.

Thanks Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 08:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@Xeverything11 I'm personally fine with this as long as proper attribution is given back to the original recipe page here. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I adapted this recipe on wikiHow with attribution, and got a Rising Star (an achievement used for best new articles on wikiHow). Thank you! Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 19:49, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikibooks community

Hi, @Kittycataclysm!

I am trying to contribute more to English Wikibooks. My main contributions will focus on the Cookbook, especially on Indonesian recipes. Do you have a community group where we can discuss and share ideas together?

I am looking forward to join. Thank you!

Raflinoer32 (discuss • contribs) 08:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Raflinoer32 Sorry I missed this, and welcome! Are you asking about a Cookbook-specific area for discussion? Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes. Do you know place for this?

Thank you

Raflinoer32 (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Honestly, there's not a centralized Cookbook-specific discussion space, especially since there aren't currently a ton of active contributors. Some people ask questions at Cookbook talk:Table of Contents. I'm currently the most consistently active and involved Cookbook editor, so feel free to ask me questions! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations!

You get this now.

You are now a permanent administrator. Welcome to the team (I am entitled to say this because I technically got the extension a few hours before you did)! JJP_Master (she/they) 10:33, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks :) —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a way to contact a Steward on WikiBooks?

Hi Kittycataclysm, Is there a way to contact a Steward on WB? I tried to find who the active Stewards are here at [[Special:ActiveUsers?username=&groups%5B%5D=steward&wpFormIdentifier=specialactiveusers]] but nothing shows up.

The reason I am asking is that I believe that all individual Wikimania-wikis should have a backward link to the Wikimania-wiki, but I just visited the wikimania 2014 wiki and could not find this backward link. I tried to ask about this on the Wikimania 2014 main-page talk but disovered that the Stewards have protected it.

Is there a way wikibookians can communicate with Stewards at WB? Thanks in advance for answering this non-urgent question, and apologies for all the red-links which I can bluify if needed. Cheers Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech You can ask this on somewhere like metawiki:Steward requests/Miscellaneous. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 17:01, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

:@Ottawahitech seconding what Leaderboard said—we no longer have any active stewards at enWB. Had a brain fade there and mixed up stewards with bureaucrats. Yes, meta is the place for this. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 19:15, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm,@Leaderboard, or anyone else:

Some wikibookians prefer for various reasons to post only at wb. I myself am indef-blocked at META so could not participate at metawiki:Steward requests/Miscellaneous even if I waned to.

Since Wikimania is a topic of interest to all members of the wikimedia movement why can't wikibookians talk to thier elected representatives here? Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 20:56, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech I can check with the blocking admin to see if they'd be willing to unblock you, if you'd like. The reason things like these are done at Meta is that Meta is a cross-project coordination platform - stewards cannot be expected to watch every project after all. Now you could message any steward here on Wikibooks if you really wanted to, but that is not normally a good idea. Leaderboard (discuss • contribs) 02:26, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikimania is the annual conference celebrating all the free knowledge projects hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). It is a wikimedia initiative which is meant to help all of our projects (including wikibooks), gain more readership, educate more wiki-editors, foster better communications, and much more. The wmf has been hosting a Wikimania-wiki dedicated to each Wikimania annual event since 2004. These wikis contain a wealth of information, but can benefit from wiki-improvements, starting from spelling and grammar errors that detract from their to appeal to the general membership. It would be nice if Stewards paid more attention to it.

@Leaderboard, I truly appreciate your offer, but I posted this here not in order to get someone to advocate for one unblocking at META. As I said earlier:

• "Some wikibookians prefer for various reasons to post only at wb"
• "The reason I am asking is that I believe that all individual Wikimania-wikis should have a backward link to the Wikimania-wiki, but I just visited the wikimania 2014 wiki and could not find this backward link. I tried to ask about this on the Wikimania 2014 main-page talk but disovered that the Stewards have protected it"

I would much rather see more wikimedia members question blocking in general at META. One cannot run such large movement of people from different backgrounds and nationalities simply by silencing minorities IMIO. Ottawahitech (discuss • contribs) 20:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Crystal ball

That page appears to be a mixture of isolated paragraphs from Crystal ball, hence my tag. JJP_Master (she/they) 03:04, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, that seems correct! I also queried it simply because it does not seem suitable for inclusion at all. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:09, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Question about an edit suggestion

Hi Kittycataclysm,

Thanks for the great work you do as an admin! I wanted to clarify a suggestion you made on a recently published page I’m working on. You recommended splitting it into smaller sections—would you suggest creating separate pages for these sections, or would a higher-level header for some topics be sufficient?

Any specific recommendations you have would be greatly appreciated!

Here’s the link to the page I’m referring to: Funding and Finance of Transportation Projects in the United States of America

Thank you! Svrmustafa (discuss • contribs) 18:19, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Svrmustafa, and thanks for asking! Splitting refers to creating new pages, each with a smaller amount of content. The main page should then contain a table of contents, and each page can contain a navigation template for easier navigation. I'll create the table of contents based on the current work and move some content to one of those pages as an example for you; then, you can do the rest. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Following up on this—I noticed that you use the term "paper". However, technically Wikibooks hosts books not papers, so you should probably change this wording. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:38, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Kittycataclysm. You have new messages at Cookbook talk:Chilli Crab.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cactusisme (discuss • contribs) 09:54, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm I also made this Cactusisme (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello

Can you look at my latest recipe? Cactusisme (discuss • contribs) 00:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I saw it! It needs a few corrections, which I'll note. What's the origin of the recipe? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

@Kittycataclysm How do you write recipe summary, correct headers Cactusisme (discuss • contribs) 06:04, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

Please see Cookbook:Policy/Recipe template. What's the origin of the recipe? —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 13:08, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

ok Cactusisme (discuss • contribs) 02:33, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Cookbook

Hi there, Kittycataclysm. I wandered over here from Wikipedia, and I'm quite enamoured with this cookbook. I noticed you seem to be the one maintaining it, and I thought I'd reach out. Can I really just start cranking out recipes from public domain cookbooks and my family recipes? It's that simple? I was also wondering about the featured recipes section. There's not very many in there, and I imagine there's not very many folks around to do reviews compared to GAR on Wikipedia. How do you handle content review? Thanks. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @MediaKyle and welcome! For some context, the Cookbook has been around since the very beginning of Wikibooks, but it had gotten into a bit of disarray over the course of about two decades by the time I found it. I started the long process of overhauling, standardizing, and expanding it just over four years ago—I finished standardizing the recipe formatting and quality a while back and am currently working my way through the ingredient pages before moving on to equipment, techniques, and cuisines. You can absolutely add any public domain recipes as well as your own recipes—they just need to conform to the recipe template and Cookbook policy overall. It's even better if you've made the recipe and can contribute a nice picture and specific guidance/instructions/notes! Please feel free to ask me any questions. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:27, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Oh, and regarding the featured recipes section, I actually haven't gotten around to looking into that yet—there's been a lot to do! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:28, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

That's great, thanks a lot for your response. This is just delightful. Maybe content review is something that we could collaborate on. There's a lot of recipes in here and it would be nice to know which ones are the best. Question for you, Category:Brown sauces is really bothering me. How can I move that to Brown sauce recipes? MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Good catch on that category! It seems like it was created two decades ago and never got corrected—feel free to recategorize those recipes. Thank you also for introducing the hideprefix parameter to the category trees—I didn't realize that was an option, and it reduces the visual clutter! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:38, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

My pleasure! As I continue to look at the categories, this is actually worse than I thought. We have both Category:Sauce recipes and Category:Recipes for condiments and I suspect that's just the beginning. I want to go through and categorize everything properly, but the bones aren't even there... How long do I have to be here before it'll let me create and move around categories? MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 02:40, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the categories, the category overhauling is in progress, since I address the category when I overhaul the associated page. The variation in titling is actually somewhat deliberate—I started changing it from "____ recipes" in certain cases to solve a particular categorization problem. Sometimes, there is an item that is used in recipes as an ingredient but for which there are also recipes. For example, Category:Recipes for bread versus Category:Recipes using bread. The different naming scheme is necessary to properly delineate the categories, and I'm working on implementing it a bit more consistently as I go. While you're still getting started, it would be great if you could check with me when something looks odd or out of place—that way I can take a look and weigh in on whether that's normal or not and maybe provide some context. Just off the top of my head, I think you will have to wait for autoreview status to make move changes. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 02:56, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, I've been trying to wrap my head around that. Maybe it would be beneficial to try to put together some sort of a Cookbook MOS regarding category structure? It's kind of all over the place right now. Using your bread example, would it perhaps make more sense to have Category:Bread recipes and Category:Recipes using bread? There would be no ambiguity with just those two categories, but when you add the extra Category:Recipes for bread, that's when things start getting a little whacky. What do you think? MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 03:05, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Either that or get rid of Category:Bread recipes and keep the other two. But one of these categories gotta go, I reckon. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I see you already had the same thought as me. I think all categories should include "for" or "using". Take for example, Category:Recipes for pancakes as opposed to Category:Pancake recipes. Well obviously there's no recipes using pancakes. But for something like Category:Recipes for gravy, there may also be a need for Category:Recipes using gravy. The lack of consistency in this regard means the only way to achieve consistency across the categories is by changing them over to that format. Sorry for clogging up your talk page! MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 03:18, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Same heads-up as below—migrating this over to Cookbook talk:Table of Contents —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:10, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Also, on Cookbook:Table of Contents, could you please add a wikilink for Cookbook:Breakfast, and maybe add cooknav to the top for seamless navigation between all the top level articles? Can't edit that article yet. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 02:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

More Table of Content Edits

Hello again. I've been going through everything and this is my list of suggestions for edits to the table of contents. Unfortunately there's not much else I can do for now, because without autoconfirmed my ability to change anything is very limited. I was going to ask for someone to check off the confirmed box for me at RfP but I can't post there either, so I guess I'll be back in four days.

• Fix Bread wikilink
• Remove "Creaming" from techniques, redirected to Mixing
• Cookbook:History of Food and Cooking points to redirect, needs capitalized
• Cookbook:Low-Carb points to redirect, needs capitalized
• Cookbook:Cuisine of the Mediterranean to Cookbook:Mediterranean Cuisine for parity
• Remove the S from the cuisine wikilinks on ToC, currently redirecting
• Create Category:Lunch recipes, wikilink to ToC
• Wikilink Cookbook:Dessert under Meals
• Get rid of "Brunch"; will just be confusing alongside a breakfast and lunch category
• Create Cookbook:East Asian Cuisine so I can add the recipes from Category:East Asian recipes to it; currently is a redlink on the ToC
• Change "Introductory Matter" header to just "Introduction"
• Appendix and Equipment sections switch places

Cheers, MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:46, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

I took the liberty of doing it myself in my userspace. You can just copy it over from User:MediaKyle/sandbox. Figured I'd save you the trouble of trying to figure out what I'm talking about. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 14:15, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Circling back to this! It seems like your suggestions are getting at a couple different things. I'll try to go through them point-by-point below:

• Fix Bread wikilink Done
• Remove "Creaming" from techniques, redirected to Mixing see below comments on TOC.
• Cookbook:History of Food and Cooking points to redirect, needs capitalized Not done for now because I don't fully understand the urgency and I want to triage/prioritize things for you, but please feel free to make this change yourself once you can!
• Cookbook:Low-Carb points to redirect, needs capitalized Not done for same reason as above.
• Cookbook:Cuisine of the Mediterranean to Cookbook:Mediterranean Cuisine for parity Not done for now just because we do have a lot of cuisine pages that follow the form "Cuisine of ____". It could be good to standardize, and I had been planning to do that once I got around to the cuisines.
• Remove the S from the cuisine wikilinks on ToC, currently redirecting Not done for same reason as other redirects
• Create Category:Lunch recipes, wikilink to ToC Not quite sure what you mean here, and I didn't see what it corresponded to in your linked sandbox page
• Wikilink Cookbook:Dessert under Meals Done
• Get rid of "Brunch"; will just be confusing alongside a breakfast and lunch category I'm not sure about this—brunch is in many places considered a separate entity, and I don't necessarily think it would cause confusion. But, overall it's hard to determine whether it should have its own page and TOC link because I haven't actually gotten around to evaluating the meal pages and what role they should play. See also the TOC notes below.
• Create Cookbook:East Asian Cuisine so I can add the recipes from Category:East Asian recipes to it; currently is a redlink on the ToC Done for now; however, I'm not sure yet whether it will ultimately make sense to keep that as a content page. I think content pages should be reasonably focused, and it may not be the best to have a cuisine page that is so broad. This is something I planned to consider once I made my way around the overhauling the cuisines.
• Change "Introductory Matter" header to just "Introduction" The reason I made it "Introductory Matter" instead of "Introduction" is because there's already a chapter itself titled "Introduction"—it felt odd to have the entire section titled that as well. Happy to discuss other header options (e.g. "Front Matter", which is a generally accepted book term)
• Appendix and Equipment sections switch places see below comments on TOC.
• Comments on the TOC: So, I think a fundamental issue with the current TOC is that it somewhat arbitrarily picks and chooses individual pages to link. It also sometimes direct-links to categories and sometimes to content pages, which I don't think we should do. Because the cookbook is so expansive, it's been established that manual indices intending to capture detail in large areas don't really make sense and quickly get bulky and out-of-date. This is why categorytree is such a useful tool! After thinking on it for a while and making some small tweaks, I think I'd ultimately like to overhaul the TOC and come to a solution that keeps a few broad headers/links to the small handful of the primary content pages while perhaps stashing away more detailed and self-updating lists in a collapsible way to reduce clutter but allow for customizable user navigation. Much to think about, and I'll probably workshop some things on the side to see how they feel.

Let me know if I've misunderstood anything! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the notes! Here's my thoughts:

• On the Cuisine titling, it actually seems like Cookbook:Cuisine of the Mediterranean and Cookbook:East Asian cuisines are the only ones that don't follow the naming scheme, i.e. "Cookbook:African Cuisine", and I think that shorter titles are preferable where it makes sense.
• On your note about East Asian Cuisine, I actually had the same thought after going through the cuisine pages. Having three separate pages for different kinds of Asian cuisine does seem a little silly, doesn't it? Do you think it might be better to combine all of them under one "Asian Cuisine", but put the different locales under separate headers?
• On Brunch - I honestly think there's way too much ambiguity around what exactly constitutes as "brunch" to keep that in. I feel as though the term brunch more applies to the time you're eating, rather than the kind of food. I think it would be easier to keep meals that include commonly accepted breakfast foods in the Breakfast category, and things that don't fit neatly into that, into the Lunch category. This would prevent any dilemmas in the future where we can't decide whether something is breakfast or brunch.
• You're right that it looks a little awkward to have the header as Introduction when there's a page called introduction. I still think that to say "Introductory Matter", or "Front Matter" as you mentioned, is a little long-winded and reflects a more academic tone than needed for a cookbook. Upon further reflection, I think maybe rather than worrying about the header at this point, we should perhaps think about trying to compile all of those short introductory type pages into one comprehensive introductory page. Then we likely won't even need a header for it on the ToC.
• The ToC is definitely a bit cluttered, and it bothers me too that there's a real lack of consistency across whether the wikilinks lead to a page or a category. I'm not sure how I would feel about cutting away too much of the navigation from it, though, because just about every page on there does have a reason to be there, it's just that they're not presented very nicely. Some of it can certainly get nested or combined though. I'll play around with it over the next few days in my sandbox as well and let you know if I come up with anything.
• As an aside, the first thing on my to-do list once my autoconfirmed comes through is to start subcategorizing all of the recipes so that they're all nicely sorted in the category trees. When you have a chance, I'd love to hear your thoughts on what we should use as the standard naming for categories. Once we determine this, I think we can also take the liberty of updating the cookbook MoS to reflect it.

Cheers, MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Note: After writing this, I realized what you were getting at about slashing away some of the subpages. Maybe we can come up with a system where all of those subpages are under their main subpage rather than on the ToC. For example, all the Cuisines are under Cookbook:Cuisines, all techniques under Cookbook:Cooking Techniques, to keep the subpages off the main ToC. Also, I wonder if maybe we should try to make a centralized discussion for this somewhere, in case anyone else wants to join in at some point? MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 11:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Heads-up: to make it easier to keep track of these and since I think they deserve their own discussions, I'm going to gradually migrate them over individually to Cookbook talk:Table of Contents. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Good idea. Can you remove the semi-protection from that talk page? I see no reason why it should be protected. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 23:23, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Cookbook ToC

Hi Kittycataclysm. I was just wondering why you didn't respond to my above message, and started a separate sandbox for the ToC instead? It seems as though you don't really want to collaborate. It would be nice if we could work on this together. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@MediaKyle thanks for the ping! I'm sorry you feel like I don't want to collaborate—the opposite is true, and please understand that this is good-faith editing. The reason I haven't responded to the above points is mostly since you've been modifying a bunch of content and adding suggestions lately, and I've been working my way through these while continuing with my routine contributions and real life as well—things happen a little more slowly here than on other projects, and I'm the one person dedicated to the cookbook right now. The reason I created that sandbox was because I saw your comment at the reading room and wanted to play around and think about your suggestion without touching the actual TOC. You're right that it's not the best, and it's been something I've been thinking about for a bit now. Please understand also that it can be overwhelming when a new editor unfamiliar with the Cookbook begins making a high volume of edits and suggestions without having much experience with it or its history—this isn't to say that you don't have good ideas or things worth contributing. In fact, you have already made a few helpful changes, as I've mentioned. I just want to do this properly and take the time to evaluate your suggestions together with the current efforts that are underway, and that can take a bit. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. While I may be new to Wikibooks, I'm certainly not new to MediaWiki, and I've been working with small wiki projects for a number of years. Perhaps it's been a misunderstanding to some degree, but I've found my reception here to be unusually unwelcoming. The way to do this properly, as you said, would be to have discussions and form consensus. Yesterday, when you reached out to me about adding hideroot to the pages, I gave you my rationale and was more than happy to have a discussion about it, but you did not reply. I noticed a similar situation happened with Ottawahitech, regarding category sorting. I'm aware that you're the main person looking after the cookbook right now, which is why I reached out to you right from the get go.

I understand why you would want to create your own sandbox to play around with options for the ToC, but I'm sure you can understand why it would draw my attention that you would do this without implementing any of the wikilink fixes I mentioned, or making an attempt to discuss it further. This came across to me as not wanting my help.

I invite you to check out my page on Wikipedia. I've made contributions across quite a wide area of topics there, as well as the other Wikimedia projects, and this is the first time I've encountered any sort of resistance to my contributions. I think Wikibooks has enormous potential, and I'm very excited to contribute to helping it grow. On most projects, this would be something to be encouraged. I don't feel like "I'm sorry that you feel that way" was really an appropriate response. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think you're right that this has been a mix of misunderstanding and miscommunication, and I think I can understand how things came across as unwelcoming! For whatever it's worth, I absolutely plan on circling back to the various discussions at hand (I have all the relevant pages open to return to), but it seems like the order I did things made it seem like I was ignoring you (if I'm understanding correctly). I am pretty busy, so sometimes items on my to-do list do get lost/shunted or it takes me a bit to get around to something—please don't hesitate to give me a ping if it seems like I'm taking a while to get back to something. Looking forward to more collaboration! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 00:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm glad you can understand where I'm coming from. To clarify, my intent is not to try to rush you, or to try to push you to make changes that you don't agree with. It's really easy to misinterpret things over the Internet, and I think a short message can go a long way. I apologize if I've caused you any undue stress by coming into the cookbook and unleashing a flurry of alterations, but do rest assured that I'm not married to any of my changes, I'm always open for discussion, and I want to see the cookbook improve just like you do. The great thing about wikis is that no change is permanent. I think we'll have it in tip-top shape in no time! MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 01:19, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Cookbook:Polish Doughnuts (Paczki)

Do you see any reason not to just add this to Featured Recipes? At least we know this one works, and it seems like this is now one of the few recipes to have a picture that actually aligns with the recipe used. I was thinking later on we'll come up with a content review system where a couple editors will actually try the recipes nominated for FR, but in the absence of that I'd just add it to the list. MediaKyle (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm fine with adding it to the featured recipes. You're right that we'll want to come up with a good system for this going forward, though it's lower down on my personal priority list at moment. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Cookbook:Cream Cheese American Buttercream

Hi! I am a wikiHow user and I am planning to adapt this recipe to wikiHow. Since you contributed to this recipe, I wanted to know if I can get permission to reuse your contributions to this recipe. Thanks. Xeverything11 (discuss • contribs) 21:41, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Xeverything11 that's fine with me as long as proper attribution and linking back to the original recipe page here are included at the top. —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

A Companion to Our Literary Journey

Hi! I feel that we have started to outline the scope in a clearer and more precise way and that’s the work we are going to do with the students this and for the next years, adding more sections and content. Do you think that would be enough? Ferdi2005 (discuss • contribs) 22:43, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Ferdi2005! Yes, this seems to be reasonably outlined. Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 01:51, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

Exercising care with copyright

When deleting a page as a copyright violation, it is important that you do not quote any content from the deleted page. If you do, then your log entry is itself a copyright violation. I have redacted a recent deletion that you performed because of this. If you want to make sure that none of your past deletions have been problematic for this reason, you can run this SQL query to get a list of every deletion that could be eligible for redaction. JJP_Master (she/they) 18:32, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi @JJPMaster and thank you for the message. In the most recent instance that I think you're referencing, I do not see any material in the edit summary that posed a significant risk—I don't believe the few listed words would be a copyright concern. However, I do understand your concern! Cheers —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 22:31, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Splitting Pages

Hi I have recently made the book on the History of the Nawabs of Bengal and you gave a notice on how you believe it should be split into smaller bits. As I am still new to wikibooks I don't know how to do this. Can you please assist me on renaming the page so I can split the page into multiple pages? @Kittycataclysm Greatswrd (discuss • contribs) 19:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

@Greatswrd: You did it. I've removed the tag. JJP_Master (she/they) 22:44, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Like @JJPMaster said, you're all set! —Kittycataclysm (discuss • contribs) 23:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! @JJPMaster @Kittycataclysm Greatswrd (discuss • contribs) 10:24, 30 March 2025 (UTC)