Talk:Botany

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Marshman, what do you think if we classify this page into a textbook instead of a study guide for the sake of listing it on the front page ? Even though it is a study guide format in terms of brevity, it isn't a study guide in the sense of notes relating to another book. How can we classify these different things ? Your comments plz. --Karl Wick

I certainly have no problem either way. I see the Study Guide as a way to eventually get to a textbook, and it is a Guide only in the sense that it is meant to guide one through Wikipedia; could, of course supplement any other text books, but is not a guide specific to any other text. It could be a "Botany text in formation". I would keep the title the same for now, just because the sense of a guide to Wikipedia articles is presently the central concept. But could move it to Science Books and I woill rethink the title - Marsh 00:11, 30 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents 1 Need to correct chapter link text 2 Very nice book 3 good sources 4 Botany Introduction Botany merger 5 secret wishes

[edit] Need to correct chapter link text

The chapter links on each page show two chapter 12's.

You are right, but I can no longer recall how to get to that page. Will take some reasearch to fix. - Marsh 19:08, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Very nice book

I like your book very much! The chapters starting from 7 need to be adjusted (chapter numbers on the pages don`t fit the number of the contents). I fixed some chapter renumbering in chapters 4 and 5. --Andreas Ipp 22:15, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I did add in some chapters, and that required chapter number changes. I guess I did not catch them all. Really appreciate your attention to such details - marsh 18:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] good sources

Where can we find good public domain sources for references? I am not even a graduate student, so I do not have too much credability in things I say just out of my head, I usually type the term I'm looking for information on with the term ".gov" into google to see if nasa or the FWS have anything to say about it.

http://www.biocrawler.com/ is a biology wiki, but they aren't especially in the habit of having public domain sources.

Of course, wikipedia is a fantastic source. - Lotusduck 02:01, 4 November 2005 (UTC)lotusduck

I'm not sure what your question is. Are you looking for sources (references) to back up things that you "know" and want to write about at Wikibooks? Although sources are always a great addition to facts you provide, they are not absolutely necessary. The quality of your writing is the real test. If you introduce "facts" that others then question, be prepared to provide outside sources for the information, but those sources can typically be as simple a textbook. You still may lose an "argument", but most of what you contribute is not going to be questioned heavily (but may be edited) unless you are a complete flake 8^) - marsh 04:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Botany Introduction Botany merger

This isn't worth merging, just junk it, it doesn't contain any really useful info, and is hopelessly local-POV biased - 82.39.130.135 23:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] secret wishes

I have always dreamed that when this book is "finished" a version of it will be frozen (while leaving this version still wiki format) and certified, backed by some university like ordinary textbooks are. Then schools could print this book royalty free instead of going the extra costs of publishers. That frozen version would be the "first edition" and whenever a professor decided that enough new, good changes had occured on this botany wikibook, a new version would be frozen and offered for printing that would be the second printing, similar to new editions of textbooks. In many ways the wiki format is a great learning tool. In other ways it is not. If students were all asked to copy a lab from this wikibook on a large scale, it would have to be 100% reliable 100% of the time. But then that reliability and un-chang-ability would also have negative consequences. I think that some day soon we can have it both ways. We can have the learning benefits of a hard copy and of a wiki for botany. Thank you. 128.101.70.97 15:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Why not do it now?

You just need to make a downloadable pdf version with a date and update it as changes occur. There is already an icon for this

Rozzychan 23:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)