Wikibooks:Reading room/General: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Older edit Newer edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 22:24, 3 February 2009

Wikibooks:Reading room/Navigation{| class="plainlinks" style="width:100%; margin:1px auto;"

| valign="top" width="25%" |

| valign="top" |

Shortcut:
[[:WB:SLC
WB:CHAT]]

Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project, and all sorts of related subjects.

Wikibooks:Reading room/Post a comment

General References:

Newest Books

start a book • suggest a book

|}

User contributions

So I recently noticed, that sometimes there started to appear [rollback] and [vandalism] in the list of contributions after some of those. I started to wonder, what it means. If anybody could tell me here, I would be really thankful. Does this has something to do with flaggedrevs or twinkle gadget? Probably not with twinkle, as disabling it didn't changed anything. If this should go to WB:SLN then sorry. Thank you for reading. Soeb ^talk^|^contribs 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bit late, but yes that's Twinkle that does that. If it didn't disappear when you changed your preferences, then you probably needed to reload the cache too. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have a question relating to the contributions sections. Sometimes the edits are highlighted in a light pink, but I do not see a certain pattern. What does the pinkish highlight mean? ~ TheSun (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ~[reply]

Those are edits which haven't been flagged yet. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of content between books

Should transclusions be allowed between books ? Ada Programming/Statements Ada Programming/Variables are examples of the problem. Transclusions between Wikibooks aren't helpful, they break several subsystem, including book renames, even deletion, categories and ultimately make edits problematic (edits can break one of the books sharing the same content by using transclusion), content should be copied and attributions give to the original book, if the size of the used content is relevant, Wikibooks should be self containing. --Panic (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The people on the original wiki usually frown on "copy and paste" -- Wiki:CopyAndPasteProgramming.

I personally think transclusion is pretty helpful. Does Wikibooks really need 20 copies of the ASCII chart?

These problems you mention -- do they still occur if I "refactor" the common content in the "template:" namespace, and then transclude that content into each book?

Didn't we already talk about this at Wikibooks talk:Naming policy/Archive 1#things that go into 2 or more books ?

--DavidCary (talk) 06:14, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We haven't, but you did :). (I've read them now,txs) In any case using the template namespace for content doesn't seem to be a solution. It would solve some of the above mentioned problems, like Wikibooks renames, deletions and probably alterations, since people would get "informed" that the content was outside of the book, and presumably understand that changes would have a higher impact, it would also reduce the problem with the use of categories. On the other hand it would be gaming the system and doesn't address the problem of ownership (rights) or attribution. Is there any guideline or policy were we could start and reach a decission on this issue ? Should it be included in some way on the style proposal ? --Panic (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, how do you solve the problem with attribution if you transclude content (whether from other books or from templates)? You have to transclude the authors list in order to include future authors, right? Is that possible? If there is no answer to this question, it is simply not allowed to transclude content due to the GFDL. Isn't it that simple? --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Martin Kraus. At first sight I would propose that constant references such as the ASCII table should be copied into each book with acknowledgements. Disk space is cheap nowadays. Similarly, content that will only be changed by the authors of the primary book should be held within the book with acknowledgements. Again, at first sight, content that might be changed by authors of other books, and where the reader should always see this changed and timely content, should be dealt with using references and links in the same way as a non-wikimedia book might be referenced. RobinH (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References and links are not helpful when the books are printed. I know that a lot of the people who read my book print out chapters for use in places where they have no Internet access. That book does transclude material from other books. What I really wish for is the ability to import modules from one book to another inside Wikibooks including edit history. We could kinda sorta do this in a very ugly way right now if we imported the book into another wikimedia project and then imported it back to here. But that can only be done by a person having import rights on two projects. --Jomegat (talk) 15:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has been talked about in the reading room before as well with no real conclusion from what I recall. I don't think books should be sharing content. Books are suppose to be more focused, explain more and be written to reflect their target audience which can be hard enough to do already without adding more complications like having to consider other books which might not even have the same goals, writing style, or target audience. Take the pages your referring to for instance. Things use to be a lot worst than they probably are now, more books use to share the content, and as a result included examples that weren't even in the programming language being discussed! Which could be confusing for people new to programming when used in a book that was suppose to focus on only one programming language. I think having examples in multiple programming languages makes more sense in a more general book, such as Computer Programming. In fact I think that shared content is also used in that book as well. --dark lama 15:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we don't need a policy on this. We should let the authors free to share content if they want to. I don't know why transclusion is a problem with book renames, deletion, etc. more than it is for linking. When one of these operations is made on a page, one must check the "What links here" page for the old name so all the links and transclusion are fixed. Regarding author acknowledgment, it is copying the action that can break acknowledgment, transclusion always preserves the original authors in the transcluded page history. Having said that, I don't mind if it is decided that content sharing should not be done, but please, don't just delete the transclusion, copy the contents instead. --ManuelGR (talk) 11:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for my ignorance, how do you transclude the page history of one page in another? --194.196.95.89 (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know you cannot do that. What I meant is that for getting the full list of authors you can check all the pages in the book, including the transcluded pages. This could be done automatically. Copying and giving credit in the comment is not subject to author list automatization. Adding to that, the user may forget to comment the copy. -- ManuelGR (talk) 12:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the "me too" comment, but I could hardly agree more with ManuelGR. I don't think we need an official policy or guideline for this. Sharing content by transclusion can be both useful as well as harmful. We should trust Wikibookians to be able to judge which is the case with the books they contribute to. Those interested in helping users learn about this could describe the pros and contras on Help:Templates or some other fitting help page. --Swift (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reset

I don't think a policy is required but a guideline should be welcomed so to establish the best practice. Trasclusion between works aren't helpful, they create to much problems.
Martin Kraus is mixing the problems transcclusions of Wikibooks aren't the same as using templates, templates by default shouldn't have content, and if they have some close relation to a work they should be kept on that work namespace, in general they aren't problematic in any way, well, I've been having some trouble with the use of categories in templates...
The Wiki copy-paste mentality, to address DavidCary comment, isn't cleanly transposed to every wiki project, here on wikibooks we have special requirements, the most important is the license we use, while copy paste works on Wikipedia, here we must give attributions to other works even if they are present on the site, doing other wise would be plagiarism and a violation of other people's rights. That is similar to the requirement of giving attribution to Wikipedia material (or use it's edit history).
To reply to ManuelGR, I will explain some of the problem, the problem with deletion is that if you remove a book that has been trascluding other books pages you can be creating orphan pages, since no one guarantees that the other book is still linking them, and those pages aren't deleted because they don't share the same scope. As for renames, they can break trasnclusion without any warning, you rename a book and each trasclusion ceases to function without any warning, both require previous knowledge of what was in place to be corrected, so in the name of easy reuse (not considering the GFDL issue), we create a maintainability problem. This also has an impact on the use of categories and other navigational aids it can break or make it's use problematic. About the edit history, the information it holds is highly volatile, as it can be lost or corrupted on edits, and it is to complex (due to all the different types of edits) to hold any significant data, if authors wish to be recognized they should do it within a high visibility page, but that is another discussion in it itself.
I would like for Swift to point out other benefits of trasclusions that aren't restricted to saving work for the editor that uses it, claiming it prevents waste of project resources is not a valid argument here... --Panic (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Summary:

chapter renames: Not a problem when the transcluded content text is in the "template:" namespace. Not a problem when the text is copy-and-pasted.
chapter deletes: Problem: if *every* book that uses a template is deleted, then it leaves an orphan template. Not a problem when the text is copy-and-pasted.
book renames and book deletes -- same as above.
categories: Not a problem when the transcluded content text is in the "template:" namespace. Not a problem when the text is copy-and-pasted.
content edits that only make sense for one book: Problem: breaks transcluded content text in the other book. Not a problem when the text is copy-and-pasted.
the problem of ownership (rights): The ownership and copyright status of a piece of text is the same whether or not that text is transcluded or copy-and-pasted or merely linked to.
the problem of attribution: Not a problem when the transcluded content text is in the "template:" namespace. That template (like every editable page on Wikibooks) has a "history" that lists everyone that has ever edited that template. Problem: Copy-and-paste can break the attribution.
Getting the full list of authors for a printed document: Not a problem when the transcluded content text is in the "template:" namespace. A 'bot can check the history of each chapter in the Wikibook *and* each template they transclude. Problem: With copy-and-paste, some authors are not mentioned in that history.
Authors who "wish to be recognized" putting their name on a "a high visibility page": editing that page is exactly the same, no matter which way their content is used elsewhere in the books.
Disk space: Yawn. No one cares about that.
If some tiny typo is noticed in the ASCII chart: Not a problem with transcluded content text -- fix it once. Problem: With copy-and-paste, someone must re-fix that typo in every copy of that chart -- and even if I've fixed 10 copies, how do I know that typo isn't lurking in a 11th copy?

If I've counted correctly, "transclusion" has 2 problems, while "copy and paste" has 3 problems. Am I missing some other problem with transclusion or copy-and-paste?

Since "copy and paste" apparently has just as many problems as "transclusion", I agree with ManuelGR: I think that we don't need a policy on this. I think our writers will realize that some information should be copied into and heavily customized for the intended audience of each book. I think our writers will realize that other information -- such as the ASCII chart -- is better to store it once, referenced or transcluded by several books. And if I had to choose only one of the two, the above list makes "transclusion" seem slightly better than "copy and paste". --DavidCary (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who wishes to properly attribute people would have to be aware that any pages that have been included indirectly might need to be looked at as well. However I think the point is: Don't overuse either approach and learn which is better to use in what situations. Templates tend to be best for sharing common visual information that is general rather than specialized, since changes are unlikely to ever be needed except to fix errors or improve the visual appeal. Like a ASCII chart. Copy+pasting tends to be best for uncommon non-visual information that is not general in nature, since changes are likely to be necessary to adapt the information to a specific book. Like the benefits and drawbacks of using ASCII in the context of computer science, computer engineering, software development, language accessibility, internationalization support, web development, etc. --dark lama 14:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possible new wikibook - seeking advice on whether Wikibooks is the right place

In 2000, I completed a PhD in Economics on the Origins of Stakeholder Theory. I get requests from time to time about the content although I have now left academia. I would like to make the content available to people who have the time and inclination to find out more. Should I use Wikibooks? The thesis shows step by step how the idea of Stakeholders developed, so it seems to conform to the requirement of being fact based, rather than a particular position. I'm considering making it available via Wikibooks so that it can also be printed on demand if people want. My questions: (1) Is Wikibooks an appropriate place to publish this work (2) How easy would it be to convert a 60,000 word Word document into a Wiki publication? thanks GilesS (talk) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)GilesS[reply]

Welcome, GilesS,

Since w:Stakeholder theory isn't your original research, I'd say that as long as your thesis is a discussion of existing ideas, it should be fine here.

The difficulty of converting your thesis depends on the level of markup, how many pages you want to place it on and the sort of interlinking that it would employ. See mw:Help:Contents for some syntax help. --Swift (talk) 05:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note there are some tools which are intended to help you convert microsoft word documents to wiki code (link to list of these tools). It won't help in spitting the book into pages or anything but it should help you with the formatting (although I haven't tried the tool myself so I don't know). Anonymous101 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First time user needs to know amount of energy used by an Airbus jet to leave the ground. Can you tell me how to go about reaching that goal? Don't know protocol. Can anyone out there help me? Geohenson@comcast.net

Edit count

My edit count seems to be quite different then what my contributions page would suggest. I only care because this seems to have some impact on whether or not I get "editor" status under this Flagged Revisons setup. I probably haven't made enough contributions yet anyways, but I thought I would let someone know that the edit count seems off, as maybe it means there is a problem elsewhere. Thanks. Thenub314 (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you mean the edit count from the "my preferences" page, or the one you get when you click "edit count" at the bottom of the "my contributions" page? The "edit count" link has been giving me strange numbers for a while. It looks like it hasn't captured any numbers from January. A similar edit counter here is also giving odd results. It says you only have 2 edits for example. Might be some larger underying problem. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 14:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The replication lag between en.wikibooks and the toolserver is currently 9.1 days - so your edit count there will be 9.1 days out of date. This shouldn't affect anything like editor promotion I believe as this is driven from the Wikimedia servers themselves and does not rely on data being replicated out to the toolservers. Someone else correct me if I'm wrong please! Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:24, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick responses. I have made all but two of my edits in the past few days, so that makes sense. (Those two edits were several years ago, I got a bit distracted in the mean time.) Thenub314 (talk) 08:59, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the S3 Toolserver won't be updated for at least a month following some maintenance that went bad. Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 17:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retiring Wikibooks:Project Ideas

I posted a comment on Wikibooks talk:Project Ideas#Retiring this page which I thought I'd bring to the attention to the wider community in case people might be interested. --Swift (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The suggestion on the talk page from Pi zero sounds sensible to me. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:58, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Editing Grant

A while back I applied for a grant with the Perl Foundation, a non-profit group that shepards the development of the Perl programming language. We have a (very nice) book here about Perl Programming that covers the language through version 5. Development effort is currently underway to completely redesign and reimplement the Perl language for version 6. Part of that work has been the creation of a new virtual machine that I've been writing about in the book Parrot Virtual Machine.

Well, I received word this morning that my grant application was approved to create a new Perl 6 Programming book to teach the new language. There is plenty of existing (although messy and convoluted) documentation about the language, a number of developing implementations, an expanding test suite to follow and an existing published book about the topic (ISBN 059600737X), so I won't be inventing anything or performing any original research.

This raises an issue that we haven't really dealt with before (or at least hasn't been made public before) that I'll essentially be getting paid to write stuff here. I'd like to hear what other people think about this, and consider any steps that I might need to take to avoid potential conflicts of interest because of this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. As far as I understand it, only the licensing is important. For example, there are lots of photos on WikiMedia Commons that were taken by employees of the US government as part of their job or by professional photographers who were paid by the US government. As long as the license allows an inclusion of some content, it is irrelevant whether someone got paid for creating that content. I don't think there is any issue. --Martin Kraus (talk) 17:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kudos WK! Though this hasn't happened in WB before, getting paid to work on Open Source has a long history. My suggestion would be for you to not use your 'cratly powers (or admin powers) to do anything controversial on the Perl book (not that I think you would). Enlist the aid of other admins and continue to seek consensus if anything with a hint of controversy comes up, and I think everything will work out pretty OK. --Jomegat (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jomegat. I was kicking around the idea of using my other account to do the editing since that account doesn't have any magic powers. That would help differentiate when I am here as a regular volunteer and when I am here under the direction of the almighty dollar. Of course, that doesn't make a lot of sense if I'm not doing anything controversial (and I like to think I can avoid controversy while editing). I'm really hoping I can attract some new readers and contributors here through this project too, so it could be beneficial all around. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of using a role account - beyond that I don't see any issues. If we're wrong on that, we'll solve the issues when we come to them :) — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the grant, Whiteknight! Like those commenting above, I see no problem with you getting paid for your work. Your interest will still be to create as useful a resource as possible. That's what ultimately matters. --Swift (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as anyone who wants to contribute can ,and so long as the Perl Foundation doesn't want to dictate anything about the development of the book, I don't see any potential problems with conflict of interest. --dark lama 18:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Perl Foundation's work is released under the Artistic2.0 license, so it doesn't make sense for them to get too involved with this project. They also have a second book in development now (which I'm also working on) that's under the Artistic2.0 and is in their code repository, so if they are going to exercise any editorial control that's where they'll do it. The benefit of having a book on Wikibooks in the first place (at least, according to my persuasive argument) was to get documentation outside their normal sphere of influence and try to attract readers that they wouldn't normally reach. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:27, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Symbolism of the new logo?

I'm guessing it isn't meant to suggest that wikibooks is a collection of loose pages rather than a collection of coherent books (although that's all I see in it).

So, what is it meant to suggest? Pi zero (talk) 00:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess something like the books Wikibooks has are open to anyone to use which can open people's world to endless possibilities? --dark lama 01:45, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are supposed to be open books, or leaves of open books, or something? I don't see how that works. A few hours ago someone looked over my shoulder while I was on wikibooks and asked me what's that thing with the wavy lines.

I'm not claiming to have a better idea for a logo... yet... not given the new slogan, which I do like. With the old slogan, which I don't like nearly as much, the old stack of books with the symbol on the cover replaced by a puzzle piece would have been good, IMO, but the new slogan doesn't work with a logo whose books are closed. Seems to me that an ideal logo to go with the new slogan should have at least one open book, perhaps more than one, and should have a globe. Of course it should be visually simple, easily recognized, easily identified for what it is, stylistically akin to the other wikimedia project logos, and readily scalable to a good-looking favicon. If I stumble across a logo like that, I'll try to remember to mention it here. Pi zero (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all your criteria for a logo, except for "stylistically akin to the other wikimedia project logos" -- perhaps you will change your mind about that after looking at the Test on logos that Julian put together?

Perhaps over at m:Wikibooks/Logo would be a better place to propose new logos than here in the reading room. You can see a variety of proposed logos in the archives of m:Wikibooks/Logo.

I'm also mystified -- what did the artist *intend* to suggest? I see a couple of subtle things in it, but perhaps I'm reading things into this w: Rorschach inkblot test that were not intended.

I'm also mystified -- who are the artists who drew it? I see that Bastique, Darklama, and Whiteknight all had a hand in tweaking it. However, Darklama and Whiteknight both say[1][2] they are basing their logo on a "slight variation" of some earlier logo -- was that by some other artist? --DavidCary (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I quite see your point — stylistically related logos sounds like a great idea, but that test sure does take the luster off it. Pi zero (talk) 00:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not choosing a new logo, don't even bother proposing it. Please peruse the archives for what the artist was intending to suggest, the old versions, etc etc. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:04, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually have been perusing those archives for several days now, and so far I don't think the information I'm asking about is in them. (By all means feel free to prove me wrong.) I suspect it may have fallen through a crack between Archive_8 and Archive_9.

To be clear, are you simply expressing unwillingness to contemplate getting into yet another thoroughly miserable and inherently flawed process over at meta, such as the one we just spent two years trapped in, or is there also another inherent impediment? Pi zero (talk) 17:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only things that could impend pursuing it are:

People are tired after 2 years, so not enough people willing to pursue a change now,
People may oppose any suggestion that a change is needed simply because they want this to be over with, or
More people are satisfied with the new logo than there are people who are not happy with it

I never cared for any of the proposals including ones I made or had a hand in modifying, because none looked as professional or as well done as other project logos. So for myself I wouldn't object to any attempts to pursue this, even though such a pursuit might not get anywhere. --dark lama 01:24, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Submitting an eBook

How do I submit my ebook on wikibooks?

My novel is called Yellow on the Outside, Shame on the Inside: Asian Culture Revealed.

Description: Why do Asians really get straight A's? Why do Asians really become doctors and lawyers? Why do Asians really play the piano? Many people believe that the reason has to do with the pressure to perform and the pressure to conform, however, it goes much deeper than that—much, much deeper! This didactic novel reveals the truths about Asian culture, which will shock you to the marrow of your bones—and open a hidden world of long-guarded secrets.

Cover: File:Http://i119.photobucket.com/albums/o158/interpauler/10.jpg

My email is ronpauler@gmail.com My name is Anson Chi.

Thank you very much. Have a nice day.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.170.2.147 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, Wikibooks is not for novels. Instead, Wikibooks is for textbooks. Perhaps there is a Wikia wiki which could host your book. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 17:25, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing the monobook background

The monobook background doesn't look very good with the new logo. I'd like to set MediaWiki:Monobook.css to override it, using File:Wiki-bg.png, which is in the same style as Commons' background for monobook. I've had this in my own skin for ~24h now, and I rather like it. I suggest people give it a try (instructions) and let me know what you think. To address some objections I forsee:

Yes, I can wash it out more, if people think it's still too bold.
Yes, I will make a gadget to set the background back to the original monobook background, so people can opt-out.

I think this will look nice, and is something we've been discussing for some time. Skinning in MediaWiki sucks - there's only a few, and Monobook and Modern are the only two used widely AFAIK. We should try to make Wikibooks look slick - this is one step in that direction. Another was moving the search box up a bit (I did that a few days ago for obvious usability reasons). I welcome further suggestions for enhancing Wikibooks' look and feel.

— Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On my screen there's just a flash of blue rounded triangles at the top and a small cream section between the sidebar and the main window, so it in my opinion doesn't look good. However, changing the blue background of the main window to a (very) washed out version might look good. Microchip08 (talk) 21:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what it's supposed to look like. Try looking at a short page, like Special:Search to see more of the image. Compare it to the monobook background which is just a banner across the top.

I'm not sure what you mean by changing the background of the main window... that's what I'm suggesting here, unless by "background of the main window" you mean "background of the content area" — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content window, yes, that's what I mean. :) It just looks a bit unprofessional. I'm not really sure how to describe it... I've added a screenshot above of Mike.lifeguard's proposal. Microchip08 (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think a Wikibooks specific look would help and don't think the proposal would hurt the interface at all. The new logo, however, doesn't work terribly well as a background image. The design already uses the wash-out feature on the page borders and the rest is near white to begin with. On most pages, this will only appear as little shapes at the top of the page.

I don't, however, have any alternative suggestions and thus wouldn't oppose the move.

PS. The search-form position is much better now and many thanks for getting the logo change done (finally!) ... to everyone who had a hand in that. --Swift (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "wash-out feature" you're referring to -- the default monobook background image is just a grey banner along the top edge. The point is that it hints at the full image (the logo) instead of showing it full-on (that's also why it's not 100% saturated & could be even less saturated if people would prefer that). — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the design of the new logo. --Swift (talk) 03:33, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another idea: How about adding something to allow something like:

<div style="float:right; right:20px; top:10px; position: absolute;" class="metadata topicon">
[[Image:Bookbar1.png]]
</div>

...at the top of every page? Microchip08 ^@simple 12:05, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freeware and shareware

Please see:

Additional input is requested. --Timeshifter (talk) 08:47, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any freeware or shareware info on Wikibooks?

I looked at Wikibooks:Computing department and it seems to continue the systemic bias I see on Wikipedia of not covering freeware or shareware very well.

Are there any books here on freeware image editing, free web page editing, choosing a free web host? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:32, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikibooks is a community and project separate from Wikipedia, and is very young; I'm not sure the assumptions about systematic bias you're making hold water here. We have holes in coverage everywhere - that is the major systematic bias. Incidentally, you might want to check Subject:Computing instead of the department page, which may yield better results in your search. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 09:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is free hosting covered?

I was looking a bit at Wikibooks:Computing department. Does it cover free hosting of any kind? --Timeshifter (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found Wiki Science and Starting and Running a Wiki Website immediately. There might be other textbooks about wikis (for example, there are some help textbooks). — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 09:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I see Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis. It is similar to Comparison of wiki farms. They are both very useful pages for anyone wanting to use MediaWiki freeware right away without having to set up a server oneself.

I am a webmaster, and edit HTML. Newbies would much prefer MediaWiki versus HTML if they only knew of the many free wiki farms, especially the newer wiki software that is WYSIWYG. But for some reason many spam fighters at Wikipedia seem to want to do their best to limit their options by deleting most of the entries on the wiki farm list there. And they also delete the links for the wiki farms that remain. So readers can't get to the wiki farms.

Starting and Running a Wiki Website/Hosted Wikis does not seem to have this problem. It is a fairly long list, and the links to the wiki farms remain. This actually makes it useful. "Useful" is not a word that is appreciated all the time at Wikipedia, but I would think the many how-to books at WikiBooks show a different purpose here. --Timeshifter (talk) 09:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also be interested in v:Managing a private wiki, which is in the very early stages of development. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 09:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)`[reply]

Logo

Is that honestly the logo that people have spent 2 years deciding over? Sure it's pretty but as a logo it's pretty shit. --ЗAНИA ^talk 18:37, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the process suffered from the fact that it started with a list of things that were wrong with the then-current logo, and then people brainstormed on what might replace it. The idea that the logo should be replaced built up momentum, and there wasn't compensating momentum given to the status quo. The new logo that was finally chosen didn't have momentum of its own, as I recall it was a late addition; it just borrowed the momentum of the process.

The next time we set out to revise our logo, we should start with a really good candidate to replace the current logo, discuss how to improve that candidate and what practical problems might arise from it, and then when we've got it as good as it's gonna get, vote yea or nay on whether to do the replacement — so that if the candidate doesn't get consensus, the logo won't change.

I don't see a really good candidate at the moment. Although I'm not happy with the new logo (I remarked on this in an earlier thread; I like the new slogan, and the old logo isn't compatible with it), I am pointedly not about to propose an undirected search for a new logo, lest we end up with something inferior to the current one. Pi zero (talk) 19:39, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

new statistics

The Wikibooks statistics have been updated. I found the statistics per wikibook (6 MB!) particularly interesting to find dead pages. (I guess there are other tools for that purpose, too. I'm just not using them.) Could anyone explain to me why certain categories are not included in wikibook category overviews, e.g. Category:Languages? Also, there are a couple of circular categories, which we should fix. --Martin Kraus (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming "Collections" to "Books"

I've just received word from the people at PediaPress that they would like to rename "Collections" to "books", to be more accurate about what their software produces (ebooks and print books). They have been in conversations with people from the WMF, and are trying to make the interface a little more standardized and informative. This change in terminology obviously conflicts with what we currently call "books" here. I think there is a way we could override the default system settings and call them something different, if we wanted to. My question is: What do people think of this change, and what do people think about our ever-growing terminology problems in general? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:22, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use the term "books" only for wikibooks and real books here. For collections one might consider alternatives such as "custom books", "folders", or "books for print". Actually, I don't like the latter because I doubt that collections will ever replace the current printing mechanism (for my test case the quality hasn't been improved in the last two months, i.e., images and tables are still not well printed). --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:40, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conceivably, a drawback of "folders" might be cognitive dissonance for users acclimated to GUIs that use a folder icon for directories. As an additional posssibility to add to the list, "virtual books". Pi zero (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that "collection" is the best label for what it produces, if the project is to be extended to every type o Wiki content as it states... --Panic (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Printable Collections"? --Jomegat (talk) 20:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did understand that it also produces e-book formats (no obligation to be put on print). If I misunderstood your proposal does seems cover it... --Panic (talk) 20:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with User:Martin Kraus there is a need to make obvious that a Collection as in (http://pediapress.com/collection/) "Create collections from almost any wiki" aren't exclusively books (they can be) but in reality they will mostly be aggregations or what is defined in our GFDL license as a collection. --Panic (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like Jomegat's "Printable Collections". It suits best the features of the extensions (you can collect pages and print them). --Ramac (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed that section of the sidebar to say "create a collection" - but do we want it to say something else? I think this is probably OK, but I'm open to suggestions (shorter only - this is about as long as we can have) — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 01:32, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think "create a collection" is the best choice: it avoids misunderstandings about starting a wikibook (which have happened), it clearly refers to the name of the related extension, it's not such a bad name for what it does, and it doesn't introduce yet another name for the same feature. --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, "PDF version" link is part of the collections stuff, right? Maybe it should be moved up there. --Swift (talk) 10:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "PDF version" link is implemented using the collections stuff, but that implementation shouldn't determine how it is presented to users. Since the "PDF version" link doesn't expose any of the collections stuff to the user, I would say it should not be moved. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:40, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we had already discussed where to place that link. Next to the printable version & permalink links makes sense, I think. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 16:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to stop bot archival of WB:AA

I strongly object that the Administrative Assistance page is being automatically archived. The problem is that the bot as is, isn't capable of detecting open and closed issues, it only detects that posts have not been replied to in 30 days. This is a special problem in those sorts of pages that require action (but may not get it), this is valid to the requests to undelete, VfD and other discussions, that would require a more complex automation of the archival process (a better bot). Any objections, thoughts? --Panic (talk) 20:26, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no point in discontinuing the practice of automatically archiving AA discussions. If nobody has responded in the last 30 days that is unlikely to change. There is no need for such requests to stick around. Inaction is as valid a response to a request as any other action. Some requests do not require any action be taken and some requests may require that the requester do other things before any action will be taken. You have been told what needs to be done before any further action will be taken. Once you have done what is needed to the satisfaction of admins, you can make a new request, there is no need to keep the old request open. --dark lama 20:57, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anything which hasn't been responded to in 30 days (actually it's 28) is stale and no longer needed. This is obviously a non-issue, and deflects attention from the real issues. — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 21:01, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If nobody has responded in the last 30 days that is unlikely to change." - Not so, the number of active admins is very small if we consider the holders of the flag, and adminship isn't static, admins came and go, what is real is that no one is forced to act (due to us all being volunteers) but ignoring open issues isn't the same as addressing them, that ultimately leads to archival of unsolved issues. (I'm not talking on a specific issue here, I see this as a general problem).

A request for administrative assistance (action) is just that, inaction should not be an acceptable outcome (leading to the closing of request), as in a VfD or an undelete or even an unblock request. More having a bot do the archiving removes any responsibility from the active admins to address the issues. --Panic (talk) 21:08, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even though you may feel that inaction is not an acceptable outcome, that isn't going to change by discontinuing the automatic archiving. People would continue to archive inactive requests whether or not the request was addressed to the sanctification of the requester, as was done before Wikibooks had a bot to do the archiving automatically. Like Mike.lifeguard said this isn't an issue and deflects attention from the real issues. --dark lama 02:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been a problem with this in the past (save that one instance that sparked the latest block on User:Panic2k4). I'd be happy to consider changing the format on WB:AA it if enough Wikibookians see a reason to do so. --Swift (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there has been a situation that admins have stated to be unwilling to resolve an issue before (this by it self is a strange situation in general). But going trough the logs I find many issues without a proper stated outcome or closed (most acting admins do tag a closed issue as DONE), but several issues aren't clearly tagged as addressed or closed, examples are "Vandalism in Articles of Confederation", "Haggar vandal attack" (an action is stated as initiated but no conclusion is given), "jet propulsion book" and there are several anonymous requests that mostly can be discarded as not fit for a reply but for instance "About the Spanish Learning pdf file." would merit a reply or being forwarded to the proper book project/maintainer, I had this check on my todo list I've looked only in the Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2007/November archive, not major issues by themselves but as a practice I don't see this as situation that the bot is promoting admins to address issues from normal users. (we have also to consider the low number of active admins on the project as part of the equation) --Panic (talk) 03:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said; this has never been a problem. --Swift (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Before electricity switching a light bulb wasn't a problem also, if you are stating that no one pointed out this as a problem, you are right and I wouldn't classify it as a problem, just as a bad practice. In any new proposition there is always a first time. Since we did recently hand a problem around this issue (the bot), removing the bot would make someone being personal accountable for the close action (as I said above it is done in VfD and other similar decisions that require administrative intervention) this will also prevent baldy closed issues like the ones I list above. This is the reason I advanced this proposal, this is no attempt to murk the waters in any way. I have stated my problem with the bot before any secondary issues arose, see your talk page for instance... --Panic (talk) 04:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Smashwords

I would like to give my Wikibooks to Smashwords and let them offer them free to any interested readers.

I do not want to do this if it will interfear with any Wikibooks policies.

How do I request approval to do this, or to offer my Wikibooks to other "free-to-anyone" sites?

Thank you. David Hockey (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please have a look at Wikibooks:Copyrights. Just follow the GNU Free Documentation License and this should be fine. --Swift (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetical order method for DynamicPageList

I have proposed a patch in order to have alphabetical order in DPL lists. The bug is 14971. However, it seems that there are some problems about sorting a text field. I hope someone can help. --Ramac (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ramac! :) Some time ago there was a posting by User:Webaware about some JavaScript code to sort these lists but that doesn't seem to work currently. I've no idea what the problem is. If we had some JavaScript to do the sorting of DPLs on the client side that would be sufficient, right? And it cannot be difficult since sortable wikitables already do such a sorting. --Martin Kraus (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing subjects

After responding half-ignorant to a request for assistance, I started looking into the whole subjects thing. I was away when the project abandoned the bookshelves/departments and only recently heard that they'd been deprecated in favour of subjects.

Well, not completely deprecated. There still linger remnants of these old systems and they make understanding how things are done somewhat more complicated than they need be. I wanted to raise this here to draw this to the community's attention. Please share what you can to shed a light on what has been done and what still needs to be done to complete this move.

Wikibooks:Subject pages seems to be the canonical page for this, but it is poorly linked to (currently: one meaningful link) and could use expanding.

Something which confused me is that on module pages, the list of categories is preceded by a link to Special:Categories with the link title "Subjects" (other pages still have the link title "Categories"). Is this a feature, or a remnant of the past?

Other relevant pages that I found are

Subject:Major Subjects
- {{All subjects}} is hardly used and should maybe be deleted.
Category:Cataloguing
- Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office
- Category:Subjects: Pages and templates in this category are used to help keep the Subject: space organized.
- Category:All_Subjects

Cheers, --Swift (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I like the idea of keeping Subject pages up-to-date by generating them automatically with Dynamic Page Lists, I'm against moving to Subject pages unless we have a way of alphabetically sorting the lists. It just doesn't seem very reader-friendly to present apparently randomly ordered lists of books. --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a requirement that subject pages use DynamicPageList even though most do. The CategoryTree extension could just as easily be used for instance: {{#categorytree:Mathematics|namespaces=-|hideroot}}. Also for what its worth, the sort order that DynamicPageList uses isn't random its by the time each page was added to the category. DynamicPageList also can sort pages by the time each page was last edited. --dark lama 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware of {{#categorytree}}. --Martin Kraus (talk) 13:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the intent was to deprecate bookshelves slowly to make sure most things are in place for subject pages first. Which I think means as more things are in place Wikibooks:Subject pages and Subject:Major Subjects would be linked to more.

Subject/Subjects only replaces Category/Categories in category listings in the main namespace and the Wikijunior namespace IIRC. Both namespaces consist of books and the intent is to have people think of categories in those two namespaces in terms of what subject(s) a book covers. {{subject}} is also intended to support this way of thinking about categorizing books. I would consider this a feature, but maybe other people would disagree?

I updated Wikibooks:Requested books awhile ago to better reflect the major subjects listed at Subject:Major Subjects and to link to subject pages instead as one step towards deprecating bookshelves. IMO Main Page should be updated last, after everything else has. --dark lama 12:44, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am new enough that I don't completely follow this discussion, so allow me to ask a few foolish questions. My main interest is mathematics, currently when I click on mathematics the main wikibooks page I get the mathematics bookshelf. If I first click on subjects, then go to the top level subject of mathematics, then I get the subject page. Is the bookshelf page intended to disappear at some point? This would be a shame because of the two pages the bookshelf page is by far more useful then the subject page. Thenub314 (talk) 15:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I believe the intention is for the mathematics bookshelf page to disappear at some point. However I think by the time that is ready to happen, the subject page will be in a lot better shape than it is now. --dark lama 15:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, Darklama. So it would appear that the bookshelves haven't been deprecated yet. While I'm sure that those involved in the discussion at the time are well on top of things, might it be a good idea to describe this move on Wikibooks:Bookshelves and Wikibooks:Subject pages (a link to relevand discussions could also help) so that users will be able to do their part on subjects that contribute in?

Regarding the category listings; The use of "subject" as a synonym for "category" really confused me when I found that there are also "subject-pages". It seems that these are supposed to complement each other, but using the same term for both seems a little odd. I don't think "category" organising books into subjects is in any way misleading and it would be useful to have separate terms.

On a somewhat related note. I seem to recall seeing a wiki setup with two rows of "categories" in the bottom (one called "category" the other something else). Does anyone know if I'm just mis-remembering, or is this an available MediaWiki feature? --Swift (talk) 09:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a way yes subject and category pages complement each other. In another way I think subjects are suppose to replace the need for most people to think about categories and categorization too. Not sure on the best way to describe the concept. Perhaps think about it like this: Writers write books. Catalogers catalog books. Writers aren't suppose to be concerned with the details of how books are cataloged, just assured that books will be cataloged. Basically a separation of interface from the details of how its implemented (does the average person really care how their OS makes it possible to read and write files for instance). IOW to the average user the difference between subject pages and categories shouldn't matter in theory. Only catalogers need to know the difference and how to assure the correct books show up on the correct pages. I think changing it back to "Category/Categories" would be a step back rather than a step forward. I think a step forward would probably be to have the categories that people see on book pages go to the subject page instead, assuming that were possible. Does that at all help reduce your confusion and explain why the same term is being used for both?

If the wiki setup is the same wiki setup that I am thinking of, the wikis that have multiple rows of categories are using an extension. --dark lama 11:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would, indeed, be ideal if writers didn't have to worry about the internals of cataloging their pages. We are, however, not quite there yet.

Having the bottom-of-the-module links point to the subject pages, effectively hiding the categories behind them, would be an idea. Do you know if this is currently implementable?

But then what would the categories be used for? It then seems like the subject pages are just taking over from the categories. Do they have a different purpose, or are they just implementing the representation of their contents differently? --Swift (talk) 03:49, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know Wikibooks isn't quite there yet. I guess you could say people were thinking big and long term, and why the decision seemed to be to take things slowly. I know category links could be changed to point to subject pages using javascript, but I much rather try to see if this could be done by changing a mediawiki page instead.

I think book categories will still be used as an index of sorts for books, like they are now. I think categories will also serve a vital role in making book listings on subject pages more automated. Yes I think subject pages will implement and represent category contents differently. Subject pages can display books from one or more categories or cross sections of categories. Most ~~categories~~ subject pages right now for instance have a general list of books, a list of featured books on the subject and a list of books on the subject that have versions available for print, which uses multiple categories. There might be other interesting uses of category cross sections people will find for subject pages as well. --dark lama 12:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I thought things were going too slowly. I was just stating my reason why I'd like to clarify things. Seeing how people are a bit confused by this, I'd like to add to the documentation where this is all going, what needs to be done, and how people (such as myself) who weren't involved in the discussion can pitch in.

So if I understand you correctly, subject pages would correspond to a sub-set of categories and are mainly for the purpose of being able to manually tweak the presentation. These would still have corresponding categories to help with maintaining these.

If this is the case, then having links direct to subject pages would be a big step forward. How about just redirecting from those category pages? --Swift (talk) 23:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing Wikijunior pages

For most books, it makes sense to me that stub pages (at least) would be unreviewed. If casual vandalism occasionally crops up, well, we're adults (or are choosing to operate in that mode), we can shake our heads at the foolhardiness of people who waste their time on earth doing such things, clean up the mess, and go on with our business. However, I do think wikijunior ought to be more resistant to casual vandalism. (Note the repellent notice currently at the top of the wikijunior main page.) I don't see any separate rule for wikijunior, to the effect that even developing pages should be reviewed as minimally acceptable (regardless of whether they meet the acceptability criteria); but it seems to me this should be a specifically acknowledged exception to the usual criteria. --Pi zero (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree that this can be a problem, I'm not sure where exactly you're going with this. Are you asking for help to do a once-over review of Wikijunior?

As for that notice on the Wikijunior main page which advises readers not to log in, they can also change a setting in their preferences (stability tab) to always show the stable version if it exists. --Swift (talk) 03:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I have in mind is something other than the mere amount of work involved, although I certainly wouldn't want to discourage others pitching in to help. I'll try to be clearer. As I read the acceptability criteria, any page can be straightforwardly upgraded to acceptable composition and accuracy; that's just good spelling and grammar, and truth or partial truth. Even if you're not sure what a problem passage was supposed to mean, it should be pretty easy to replace it with something (or sometimes with nothing) that at least meets those criteria. However, upgrading some pages to acceptable coverage would require adding more material. I believe it ought to be possible for wikijunior books to contain stub pages, which more-or-less by definition have not yet achieved acceptable coverage — and at the same time I believe all wikijunior pages should always have a reviewed version, so that casual vandalism will not instantly appear on the default page. I'm proposing that

there should be an exception to the acceptable coverage criterion to allow wikijunior pages to be reviewed as having acceptable coverage even if they're stubs, and while we're at it
there ought to be an explicit statement somewhere that wikijunior pages should be brought up to acceptable review status promptly, preferably before their link to the book's main page is reviewed.

Alternatively, perhaps the acceptable coverage criterion is meant to be weaker than I'm reading it to be, in which case the fact that I've misunderstood it suggests that some rephrasing of the criterion is in order. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Help:Revision review, the acceptable coverage criterion stated there does look enormously weaker than what I was going by — presumably my difficulty was because I was working off of the version at Using Wikibooks, which is much stronger (on a relative scale). The question then becomes, which version of the criterion is more "official"? --Pi zero (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the help and project namespaces should be considered the official version. This whole thing is very new, however, and as such is still in flux as we decide what these things should mean.

While there is a notice up top, alerting users that modules are unreviewed. I can see your viewpoint about the special nature of Wikijunior and guess we wouldn't want readers' guardians feeling that users might be stumbling onto something they consider offensive. I suggest we just interpret "acceptable" as acceptable enough to justify the sighting in light of the audience. --Swift (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to clarify the "repellent" note. And yes, I think such a repellent note is needed. Otherwise Wikijunior's reputation (and maybe also Wikibooks' reputation) will seriously suffer when parents realize what images are used for vandalism. (Imagine a mass media article with one of these images.) --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that the notice repels potential readers. It's scarcely short of "Go away!" And although I'm sure it's not perfectly worded (Swift makes a good point about default settings), I wasn't criticizing its content. I'm lamenting that there is cause for it. After giving some thought to how it might be rephrased, I decided that I was going at the problem from the wrong end. As long as there are unreviewed pages on wikijunior, that heightens the severity of warning that's called for. If every single page on all of wikijunior had a reviewed version, then I think we could make that notice considerably smaller and less... repellent. So I started reviewing pages. As I've slowly worked my way into the task, I've observed this matter of acceptable coverage that seemed like it ought to be clarified. --Pi zero (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the notice is warranted in the case of Wikijunior, but I see it as a great tool not to repel, but draw in new users. I think that rather than the current negative "beware of bad content" we should have a positive "stable versions (of reviewed pages) are served to ensure quality". I'll be bold later today if no-one beats me to it. --Swift (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 18: / Line 18: @@
 }}
  |}<!--Take threads to archive below this line-->
+== User contributions ==
+So I recently noticed, that sometimes there started to appear [rollback] and [vandalism] in the list of contributions after some of those. I started to wonder, what it means. If anybody could tell me here, I would be really thankful. Does this has something to do with flaggedrevs or twinkle gadget? Probably not with twinkle, as disabling it didn't changed anything. If this should go to [[WB:SLN]] then sorry. Thank you for reading. [[User:Soeb|Soeb]] [[User_talk:Soeb|<sup>talk</sup>]]<sup>|</sup>[[Special:Contributions/Soeb|<sup>contribs</sup>]] 17:07, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
+:Bit late, but yes that's Twinkle that does that. If it didn't disappear when you changed your preferences, then you probably needed to reload the cache too. <font color="#E66C2C">[[User:QuiteUnusual|'''Unusual? Quite''']]</font> <sup><font color="#306754">[[User talk:QuiteUnusual|TalkQu]]</font></sup> 14:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
+I have a question relating to the contributions sections. Sometimes the edits are highlighted in a light pink, but I do not see a certain pattern. What does the pinkish highlight mean? '''~ [[User:TheSun|TheSun]] ([[User talk:TheSun|talk]]) 03:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC) ~'''
+:Those are edits which haven't been flagged yet. &nbsp;'''&mdash;&nbsp;[[User:Mike.lifeguard|<b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b>]]'''&nbsp;&#124;&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Mike.lifeguard|<span style="color:#309;">talk</span>]]</sup> 03:02, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
 == Transclusion of content between books ==
@@ Line 71: / Line 80: @@
 :: Someone who wishes to properly attribute people would have to be aware that any pages that have been included indirectly might need to be looked at as well. However I think the point is: '''Don't overuse either approach and learn which is better to use in what situations.''' Templates tend to be best for sharing common visual information that is general rather than specialized, since changes are unlikely to ever be needed except to fix errors or improve the visual appeal. Like a ASCII chart. Copy+pasting tends to be best for uncommon non-visual information that is not general in nature, since changes are likely to be necessary to adapt the information to a specific book. Like the benefits and drawbacks of using ASCII in the context of computer science, computer engineering, software development, language accessibility, internationalization support, web development, etc. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;">[[User:Darklama|<font color="midnightblue">dark</font>]][[User_talk:Darklama|<font color="green">lama</font>]]</span> 14:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
+== Possible new wikibook - seeking advice on whether Wikibooks is the right place ==
+In 2000, I completed a PhD in Economics on the Origins of Stakeholder Theory. I get requests from time to time about the content although I have now left academia. I would like to make the content available to people who have the time and inclination to find out more. Should I use Wikibooks? The thesis shows step by step how the idea of Stakeholders developed, so it seems to conform to the requirement of being fact based, rather than a particular position. I'm considering making it available via Wikibooks so that it can also be printed on demand if people want. My questions:
+(1) Is Wikibooks an appropriate place to publish this work
+(2) How easy would it be to convert a 60,000 word Word document into a Wiki publication?
+thanks
+[[User:GilesS|GilesS]] ([[User talk:GilesS|talk]]) 05:09, 3 January 2009 (UTC)GilesS
+: Welcome, GilesS,
+: Since [[w:Stakeholder theory]] isn't your [[WB:NOR|original research]], I'd say that as long as your thesis is a discussion of existing ideas, it should be fine here.
+: The difficulty of converting your thesis depends on the level of markup, how many pages you want to place it on and the sort of interlinking that it would employ. See [[mw:Help:Contents]] for some syntax help. --[[User:Swift|Swift]] ([[User talk:Swift|talk]]) 05:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
+:Also, please note there are some tools which are intended to help you convert microsoft word documents to wiki code ([[w:Help:WordToWiki|link to list of these tools]]). It won't help in spitting the book into pages or anything but it should help you with the formatting (although I haven't tried the tool myself so I don't know). [[User:Anonymous101|Anonymous101]] ([[User talk:Anonymous101|talk]]) 16:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
+First time user needs to know amount of energy used by an Airbus jet to leave the ground. Can you tell me how to go about reaching that goal? Don't know protocol. Can anyone out there help me? Geohenson@comcast.net
 == Edit count ==