Talk:Main Page/Archive 4

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svg

This is an archive of past discussions. Please do not edit the contents of this page.
If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current discussion page


Contents

Making a more user-friendly Main Page

As a newcomer, I find the Main Page not very helpful. It's not easy to see what Wikibooks has to offer, and were it not for my preconceptions from Wikipedia, I wouldn't know what to do with it.

One of the things not easy to find is what completed books there are, and how much assumed knowledge each book has. I'll try, if I may (I don't wish to over-impose myself as a newcomer and hope my comments are taken as being constructive), to make an initial mock-up of what the Main Page could look like to encourage further comment, Jguk 08:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that the Main Page needs some work. The aspect that really needs to get some work is the list of Wikibooks that appear underneath the voting page links, and a decision regarding what to do with Wikijunior. Perhaps Wikijunior needs to simply be moved to its own Bookshelf, and listed with the rest of the bookshelves. I added Wikijunior to the navigation sidebar, so I don't think it is so necessary to have as prominent of a link on the main page that it has.
We also need to completely rework the whole bookshelf issue as well. This list of Wikibooks is growing and perhaps just a list of bookshelves, or a list of prominent Wikibooks that are of similar quality to the Book of the Month winners. If we want to simply suggest that Book of the Month winners alone can be on the front page, I would be supportive of that idea. The list of newly created Wikibooks is a good idea, and I don't want to get rid of the list of books on each of the Bookshelves, like we have it currently. Just that this information needs to move to another page besides the main page, with a very large link from the Main page to this new Bookshelves page.
Most of the elements of this main page need to be kept in some form or another, but we can do a better job than we have so far. Suggestions have come from other Wikibooks projects (in other languages), and perhaps we need to listen this time? --Rob Horning 18:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The first page you see before creating an account should let you know that you need to create a new one even if you have other wiki accounts (eg wikipedia) Mccready 13:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

While this is a good suggestion, some people use the fact that you are clueful enough to create a user page for your account as a sign of a veteran user and somebody who therefore deserves respect. The term that has been thrown around on Wikipedia is "Red-shirt" users and "Blue-shirt" users, refering to the color of the link when a user signs their name. Some others add extra value when you have a customized user signature, but I consider that to be utter nonsense myself.
The issue of multiple accounts is going to be addressed real soon, with the lead developer of the MediaWiki software, Brian Vibber, who has a working common account system that is somewhat shortly going to be adopted for all Wikimedia projects. How much the user data is going to be tied together from one project to another is going to be interesting to see, especially considering that some users have multiple account names across various Wikimedia projects, and I believe that sysops are going to need a little more access to user accounting systems to get this system working properly. --Rob Horning 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IMO it would be a good idea to have a main page specificly for readers with link to the current front page. The idea is that a person should be able to start reading without knowing a thing about wikibooks. I think of a small introduction followed by a organised portion of completed books, follow by the less completed books in seperated sections. just my 2 cents --Patrik 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


I don't like the logo very much, it is so different from the wikiversity, ir the wikipedia ones, which are so much more dynamic--Afa86 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)--Afa86 03:00, 5 November 2006 (UTC)


I think that maybe you should consider making the main page less like Wikipedia and a little easier to navigate the bookshelves. The ideas are great, but the books themselves are difficult to navigate, and so you really have to know how to use one of the other Wiki sites in order to navigate, which can make it quite difficult for the new user to understand. Just a thought.


I love present layout, thanks to all.

main page organization

Prometheuspan 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC) I have completed a list of umbrellas on my user talk page. It may be missing a few items, but more or less all i did was crunch what you have allready. (check out the history.) Prometheuspan 02:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

anyways, just two cents... Prometheuspan 03:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think books should be organised according to number of books, not theoretical divisions. Currently we have great advantage of books related to computer science, and as result we have three bookshelves connected to computers. --Derbeth talk 09:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess this is more organization by topic vs. organization by necessity. Our bookshelves were originally developed by a similar method to simply decide what some major topics we would be working on, then try to stuff books into them. The problem is that some of our bookshelves have grown considerably and needed a breakup, which is why there are five seperate computer bookshelves, and some new bookshelves that have grown from the Miscellaneous bookshelf as several books that were organized along the same theme have been grouped together and thrown onto their own seperate bookshelf.

Frankly, we need some help in providing some more realistic methods of searching for content on Wikibooks, and I would encourage you to help participate with our Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office, which was established to help with the classification of the various Wikibooks along several different methods including doing Library of Congress cataloging and using the Dewey Decimal System as well. As these are original works, there isn't a clear catalog number that has been assigned to any of these Wikibooks (so far) and the art of classifying information, Ontology, is something that we are lacking currently with Wikibooks. If you have an idea about this, please join the discussion on the Card Catalog Office, or add a note on Staff Lounge. Reworking this main page is something that has been discussed there several times and we can use all of the reasonable ideas that we can come up with. --Rob Horning 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC) This is the main point that i think needs to be made. Pragmatic concerns are real concerns, and it is somewhat silly to have a half empty book shelf on one end of the library, and an overstuffed one on the other end. However, Ontology should take reasonable precedence, or you end up with groupthink out of the apparent (and subliminal) sense of how things are being slotted. If person x wants to write a book about topic y, they may reject the idea of doing it here only because the organizational schema doesn't seem to include them; there is no "slot." Other concerns, at this point, are even beyond this; the lack of an apparent ontology might even make user x wonder why they would bother associating themselves with such a slipshod organization. If it is meaningfully necessary to have 25 bookshelves under computers, then list on the main page only those books nearly or fully complete, create a new page, and have the other bookshelves there. (For instance.) Something else to consider is that there ought to be simple criteria stated in front of the bookshelf so that users can determine whether or not their book idea would go on that shelf. The best umbrellas are the largest umbrellas. The best organizational schema take advantage of the largest possible umbrellas and then use smaller umbrellas as the need arises. I'll post this also at the lounge, i hope that this isn't forking the conversation. Prometheuspan 00:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC) change that, I will play with organizing this page on my user talk page.Prometheuspan 01:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Links

I need links to see the whole book, like I dont want to see individual pages or chapters, I want the whole books. Then I dont need to download like 50 chapters all at different links. I'd like to see links to view the entire book on one page in the future.

Ok, we are working on in. There's a project Wikibooks:Print versions aiming to add such version to every book. --Derbeth talk 19:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

functional main page

What about heading the main page with a functional table of books that are ready to read? Readers can then go straight to the book they desire. ie:

Books that benefit from online access
Cookbook - Chinese - French - German - Spanish
Classic Textbooks PDF (Edition) Edit Draft Version
Cell biology PDF(1.0) Edit
Physics (Free High School Science Text) PDF Edit
Demystifying depression PDF Edit
US History PDF(1.0) Edit
UK Constitution and Government PDF(1.0) Edit
Special Relativity PDF(1.0) Edit
Introduction to Paleoanthropology PDF(1.0) Edit
Consciousness studies PDF(1.0) Edit
Introduction to sociology Print version Edit
ADA Programming PDF Edit
How to build a computer PDF Edit
French PDF Edit
There are many other books under development, page down for more!
Books for children PDF (Edition) Edit Draft Version
Vatican PDF(1.0) Edit
The Solar System PDF(1.0) Edit


PDFs for Trigonometry and High School Extensions etc. would be needed. Unfortunately I am no artist so the colour scheme and layout could be improved. Perhaps authors can make the production of print versions a priority?

Readers, who are interested in less complete books, and contributors can then be given a more complex set of instructions further down the page. (I have also posted this at "staff lounge"). This would be a temporary fix with some other method being used once 30 or so substantial books have been completed. RobinH 11:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion above is now out of date. I am happy with the new-look front page to Wikibooks and link to PDF listings. RobinH 10:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikinews logo in sisterlinks

No text!

should be image:Wikinews-logo.png so that there is no text. Bawolff 19:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Derbeth talk 20:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

location for discussion

I've posted at Template talk:Main Page introduction to suggest that discussion take place here, rather than spreading it around to the staff lounge and templates' talk pages.--Bcrowell 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

more proposals for highlighting good stuff

I think the inclusion of the highlighted books section at the top of the main page is a big step in the right direction. I still think there is a need for a lot more motion in that direction, however. The basic principle I'd like to suggest is that the material closest to the top of the page should be the material that is most likely to be useful to readers. Almost none of the New Wikibooks box is useful to readers, since these are books that don't have a significant amount of useful material yet. The Wikijunior books also don't deserve to be so high up, IMO; if the books are of particularly high quality, they can be listed in the Highlighted Books banner, and in fact a couple of them are. I think the most important improvement that could be made, however, would be to break up the Active Bookshelves listing so that books with a significant amount of useful content (say 50%+ development stage) are listed first, and the rest are listed later. Check out Weight Loss for an example of the kind of garbage that is mixed in with the good stuff. My guess is that a lot of the reasons the main page is designed the way it is have to do with the feeling that wikibooks needs to attract writers. However, I think the current state of the page is accomplishing the opposite -- potential writers are likely to look at the main page and get the impression that wikibooks is a failure, and that it's therefore not something they want to contribute to.--Bcrowell 22:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The point of listing Wikijunior prominently was mainly to collect support for what was arguably a totally brand new Wikimedia sister project, and the fact that $10,000 USD of cold, hard cash went into the coffers of the Wikimedia Foundation to help pay for getting this project off the ground. Supposedly this was money that was to be spent as seed money for hard copy (dead-tree) versions of this content, but I think the money has already been spent on the server farm. The people who got the grant money have not been talking to the people doing the work on Wikijunior content. As the money has already been spent, and no new grant money has come in, the need for such a prominent place on the front page is more in the past. Besides, I added the link on the navigation sidebar, which is plenty of advertising for Wikijunior anyway. --Rob Horning 04:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I like to draw some attention to my proposal of improving the front page: Template_talk:Main_Page_introduction#Suggestion:_A_copy_from_w:fr:Mod.C3.A8le:Encyclop.C3.A9die. --Krischik T 13:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally aggree, the material near the top of the main page should be whatever is most useful to the site visitors, especially new ones. And it is much better to have a few, good links, than many, useless links. We should work to bring people to the places where they will find useful content with as little problem as possible. We should de-emphasize new books. By the way, IMHO, Wiki Jr should remain on Wikibooks, because they are books. --Karl Wick 20:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Botm

I have created Wikibooks:Book_of_the_month/April_2006_voting and Wikibooks:Collaboration_of_the_Month/April_2006_voting. I also created their pages but am not sure why they won't display on the main page. They work in COTM and Botm though. Wikibooks:Book_of_the_month/March_2006 Wikibooks:Collaboration_of_the_Month/March_2006 Klingoncowboy4 00:59, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Fixed now Klingoncowboy4 17:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This is a monthly chore that has to be done by somebody, and I'm glad that you took up the challenge and got it done. Thanks! I did it last month, and is one way to demonstrate that this project is far from dead. The Wikijunior new book of the Quarter is a bit trickier as I didn't know how to introduce a quarterly template onto a page. The monthly ones seem to be a bit easier to make (as are daily features). Who does this should be a little better organized, but I've seen the red links only go for about a half day before they get fixed on the main page. --Rob Horning 01:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Specific Suggestions to Improve the Main Page

  • Reduce New Wikibooks section to just a link
  • Include links to the 15-35 most complete books, in a section that might replace the highlighted books section
  • Include a link to a page with just "good" books, instead of "all" books
  • Replace the browse section by a link to a new page called "find a book"
  • Include link to a page of downloadable PDFs

--Karl Wick 22:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Update the wikibooks logo to make it look more sexy and web 2.0ish.

Comment on New Wikibooks List

While I would agree that most of the old Main Page needed to go, this is one aspect I think does add value and serves a purpose on the front page. From the vantage point of being an administrator, I use it as a gague to see what sorts of new content people are coming up with and I've been able to spot problem Wikibooks in advance, or at least try to deal with the issue before it becomes a flame war.

From the viewpoint of a new (or even veteran) Wikibookian, this gives you a place to advertise a new Wikibook as a general call for support. This has even proven useful in some situations and has given some Wikibooks the initial "shot in the arm" to become something more than a mere stub. As they are only listed there for just two weeks at the most, and the list has generally stayed comparatively small, I also fail to see why it needs to be removed. A mere link to another page wouldn't serve this function and I will predict that it will become a dead and useless page (the new Wikibook page) unless that content is left on the main page. It also keeps the Wikibooks:Staff lounge from getting cluttered with new book announcements.

All in all, though, I think this is a good direction that has happened, and a reasonable cleanup. --Rob Horning 01:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

If you think we should leave it, I'm willing to be flexible about it, what do you think if we include it a little bit below some other information in one of those two big colored boxes? And do you know how to clean up the spacing and stuff there? I have been working on it on my free time here from work today but at the moment it looks kinda funny and I have not been able to get it cleaned up... Thanks! --Karl Wick 01:34, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Semi Protection?

Why not reduce this page to Semi Protection? Gerard Foley 22:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

The main page need to be protected from vandals - and getting a new user is easy enough - only this week we had Bar Ilan Troll 1 to Bar Ilan Troll 8 to deal with. On then other hande: Most of the main page consists of templates and not all of those are fully protected. Still - If you plan an overhaul and have good ideas for it I would consider reducing protection for a short while. --Krischik T 07:17, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
With Semi Protection a persons account has to be 4 days old before they can edit Semi Protected pages. Gerard Foley 16:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

New Main Page

Looks good! A definite improvement. RobinH 09:39, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Still Template:Main Page content needs to be changed to reflect the new look. --Krischik T 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Current shape of main page is really fine. I support stopping revolution and leaving current version as it is, perhaps with small fixes. --Derbeth talk 19:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

order of components

I am unsure if the current order "introduction, content, navigation" is the best one. What is More important to the user "Book of the Month" or "Search and Browse". Opinions? --Krischik T 09:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Integrate Content into Navigations Template?

I think it looks simpler. See my user page for an example. --Hagindaz 21:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Precicly what I was planning as well. We could still have two templates (for finetuning protection) but that is the way to go! --Krischik T 06:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

looks good

DRAT! just lost a whole reply!

okay, starting over.

  • I think that the new page looks awesome. I think that the search/browse function is right where it needs to be, and that the component problem mentioned can't be helped. Theres two types of Users here, the Community user and the Info User.
  • I'd like to see a lot more umbrellas. For instance, "Religion" deserves its own umbrella. I think that there ought to be an imaginary line between Text Books and other types of books, and thatthe two shouldn't be shelved under the same umbrella. The stated mission of Wikibooks is "Open Source Textbooks." That doesn't mean that we have to disinclude other types of books in the library, but I

think a section of the library, for main page purposes below the rest of the umbrellas, ought to be reserved for POV/fiction. I have a couple of examples i will try to link to.

  • The first is "Universalist Religion." Great premise, Great Idea,

dastardly and ignorant implementation by an Author ignorant actually of their subject. Don't Delete the book, its a fine book. Move the book to a bookshelf entitled "Religion, POV." A bookshelf at the very bottom of the organizational chart. If the Author could be coerced to finish the book via a discussion process, that would be great. Short of that, It is too eccentric an organization for others to jump into. I would love to be the guy to walk him through it. Serious POV problems. Developing A Universal Religion


  • There is a place for Factual Texts regarding religion. However,

Religion is inhernatly POV. As we descend away from Fact and into POV, I think Religion propper ought to be right on that imaginary line, below the POV demarker, and perhaps a second Religion shelf below the rest of the POV would be nice for Serious POV like the example above. (A Textbook covering, by way of example, the factual axioms of a given religion, or, reporting regarding a given religions publications, for instance, would go in the first category. Books discussing, making an argument, apologists materials, and so forth go in the second category.)


<pov+>God for the Third Millennium >>God for the third millenium is out of place here. and probably Religion POV not Religion propper.<<

-Religion-Ayyavazhi-Christianity-The Gospel of John-Islam-Islam Way of Life - Christian Theology-

(Religion, not +POV)Topical Bible Study Reference Tool - >Is does this belong here, or in "education"? Constructivist Theories in Education

-Religions And Their Source - Developing A Universal Religion -


  • "Aspergers Survival Guide." I have Aspergers, AND the equal of a Doctorate in Psychology. This book is full of POV and cognicentrism, as well as magical thinking. A TEXTBOOK it is not. A very valuable window into Aspergers, It IS. Keep the book, but put it under that imaginary line of POV, on a different shelf than standard psychology,

as in "Psychology; POV." A survival guide for people on the autistic spectrum

  • Harrypotterville "School of Magic" again, I have tons of info from Comparative World Religions, including Shamanism and Wicca, which i could unload on this hapless ignorant Author. This book isn't factual, and never tried to be. It has no place being listed as a "School" with the rest of them, it direly needs assorted POV disclaimers. However, as a "POV; Fiction" book, it is a great little

adventure, and I'd like to see it finished. School of Magic:Magic in the Prehistory (As a side note, where this book tries to be factual it is full of serious errors. For instance, Chaldea is not the first place where Magic was practiced.) (more on serious factual errors.)

Talk:School of Magic:About the Magic

  • I hope that you see where I am going with this. "Miscellaneous" Doesn't really fit, unless it is also disclaimed, because by ontological deduction, the miscellaneous slot we have is for miscellaneous FACTUAL materials. We don't need to disinclude POV from

Wikibooks, in my opinion. We do need to propperly label and shelve it so that people know what they are getting into. I'm thinking of starting a new club over at wikipedia. It would be the MPOV club. The job of this club would be to infuse Wikipedia articles with as much POV as is reasonable, rather than editing out and neutering articles of all POV. The use of appropriate disclaimers, and a sense of how much depth to go into is important here. The Psychonaut Article in Wikipedia is a great example. Here, MPOV really just wants to see a list of the different types of psychonauts, linking to the different religions. Not a lot of material, but enough to show that Psychonaut is a trans-denominational term, and enough to link it appropriately to the pov slots that are RELEVANT. In Wikipedia, finding an article laced with POV is grounds for drasticlly reworking or deleting an article. That is a necessary function of what Wikipedia is. Here, I don't think that needs to be the case. Instead we can just label and shelve it accordingly. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychonaut

  • Back to my original point. I'd like to see about twice or three times as many main page bookshelf areas. (listed on the main page.)The POV issue is just one of the issues that justifies this. (And the easiest example for me to illustrate. A Whole new set of issues arises with things like Wikijunior.)

"Natural Sciences"Computer Science – Engineering – Health science – Mathematics – Natural Science — The Free High School Science Texts: Physics

Okay, this is a perfect example of umbrella crunch. Computer Science isn't a natural science, its a technological science. Computer Science should probably get its own area on the main page, as should Health Sciences, Mathematics, and so forth.

Social Sciences Business – Economics – Humanities – Languages – Law – Social science — Chinese (Mandarin) — Consciousness Studies – Japanese

Again, Business+Economics belong together, but not under the same umbrella as Linguistics, Psychology, and Sociology, All of which deserve their own main page umbrella.

Miscellaneous Education – How-to – Study Guides – Misc. — Cookbook – How To Build A Computer – Lucid Dreaming

Education deserves its own area, or, might fit under Psychology. "How Toos" are big enough that they deserve their own area. Lucid Dreaming should probably be double listed over in Psychology also. How to build a computer is a How TO- but it is more importantly a Computer Science Topic, and thus should shelve primarilly over there, and secondarilly under "how too".

Special Groups Wikiversity – Wikijunior — Wikijunior Big Cats – Wikijunior Solar System –

I think Wikiversity and Wikijunior should both each get their own area on the page also.

Prometheuspan 23:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

departments

It seems you missed the new level of structure: departments - or is it what you have called umbrellas? I have introduced departments to reflect the way most larger libraries and bookstores are organized:

i didn't miss it, I am just suggesting more diversity. Umbrella is a synonym here for umbrella. Umbrella actually is a generic term, and departments is one way of implementing the concept of umbrellas. 209.129.49.65 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC) ps lol THINKSTARSHIP/Departments

In most bookstores the various shelves are organized in departments. Also some books of each department are placed on special display (I have decided for the book of the month winnners).

I allow a shelve to be shared between departments - currently this is used for computer games and computer science.

We could of corse have more departments - however a new department would need at least two shelves (better three) and probably one book of the month winnter to be complete. And each shelve should have at least 10 books - real books - not "suggested books" and better more.

For example you suggest Education bookshelf to for an department - but Education bookshelf has only 14 books. Think of it like this: You enter a large bookstore go to the escalator. At the escalator there will be a sign telling you on which floor you find which department. Could you imagine a department with 1 shelve and 14 book to be mentioned here?

obviously, the reason why an experienced wikibookian should implement this and not me is that i have no clue how much finished versus partially finished materials you have here. Not to put the effort down, but the entire place is sort of in that state of chaos that is proof of genius working hand in hand with eccentricity. I'm not sure, but, this could mean that for the time being the situation should be left alone. Eventually more bookshelves will have to be added. 209.129.49.65 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


And compare Education bookshelf with the Programming languages bookshelf. The A - F section of the Programming languages bookshelf has more then 14 books.

--Krischik T 07:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are two other departments at minimum you can't do without. one is POV/Etcetera (POV/Politics, POV/Sociology, POV/Psychology, Alternative Sciences, Parapsychology and POV/Religion.) And Fiction/Etcetera (Fiction/Fantasy, Fiction Science Fiction,...)

Also, there are some other issues i brought up which you haven't adressed. They may be better at the staff lounge, etc. 209.129.49.65 01:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC) Prometheuspan 01:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Bookshelves

I didn't want to spread this around too much, so i put it here rather than all over the place, but the bookshelves need organizing. The names, order, and concepts of the Bookshelves are all great. But many of the books are out of place. Sometimes by only a line or two, sometimes they are just in the wrong place period. Prometheuspan

General Project Announcements

From time to time there is a request to have a special unique project announcement on the front page. This would be for things that have a significant impact, such as the vote for Wikiversity on Meta, or a major policy change that needs the attention of many users. One that is being discussed right now is the possibility of a "Book of the Year" award for the "best of Wikibooks" and a call to vote.

My question is more where would everybody think the most appropriate place to put announcements of this nature, especially if you think that perhaps a note on the Staff Lounge would be inappropriate. I have been able to attract some people to a major voting discussion by posting a notice on the front page, especially if it isn't buried somewhere else. The current organization of the main page doesn't seem to offer a natural place to put an annoucement of this nature.

As an example of where announcements like this are put with another Wikimedia project, see the main page of Meta, and especially the "Goings-on" section. Meta is more unique that there are always some sort of pressing issue that is being debated and discussed there. I don't see that as so big of a deal here on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 17:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The Main Page content template seems perfect for this. Everything on there is updated periodically. --Hagindaz 17:31, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Prometheuspan 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Collaboration of the MonthMarch - Do know something about data, sample surveys, and pie charts? Or how to correct spelling and grammar errors? Help make Statistics ready for the classroom!

Vote - More >>

Wikijunior New Book of the Quarter

1st Quarter 2006 - Dinosaurs! Learn about the T-Rex, the velociraptor, the brontosaurus, their lives and their extinction, even the pangea.

Vote - More >> Hot Picks New WikiBooks

My opinion is that it goes about right here. But then again, I wouldn't have wikijunionr on this side, I'd have it on the other side. There are two things happening on the main page, the first is the community portal functions and the second is the macro for the bookshelves. Obviously, the community functions list becomes extraneous quickly, and the most relevant things are the sub macros which help to navigate other than just the Shelves. Links to the Index and the dewy system also belong here, its sort of the the ketch all spot before the imaginary line change.

Search and Browse

Prometheuspan 21:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Spelling mistake

Under 'Hot Picks', 'High School Math Extentions' should read: 'High School Maths Extensions'.Duncan.france 02:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Bump. It points to a redirect, too... 71.96.234.140 02:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
Fixed... thanks! --LV (Dark Mark) 02:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)


Under the current BoTM, the description reads, "The Rhetoric and Composition book is is designed for use as a textbook in first-year college composition programs." Unfortunately, the page is locked, so I cannot fix it. --Jipperum 23:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. --Derbeth talk 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Pagination?

It makes navigation diffcult without pagination. Most readers, particularly who would read the Wikijunior series, probably feel more comfortable with a simple Next-> button, even though the spatial orientation of the web Next-> is misleading. I don't usually find myself reading a book, especially a children's book, but thumbing through an index to find what I want and going there. Usually I read cover-to-cover, in a linear sequence.

I think this is more of if you want it, make it happen. Many things of this nature have been added to Wikimedia projects simply because somebody felt a need to get it to work and jumped in to do it. Any little thing like this is an appreciated addition to most of Wikibooks, but simply takes time to get it put together. --Rob Horning 15:05, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Cymraeg

Could you add an interwiki cy: at the main page please. There are some red dragons at the western part of your island who cannot speak english :-) Etienne 26 apr 2006

Done! GarrettTalk 20:36, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Main page title

Can you update MediaWiki:Monobook.js from the Wikipedia version so that the "Main Page" header is hidden and the "module" page type becomes "main page?" --Hagindaz 02:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Derbeth talk 09:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

how to make a computer

Shouldn't How to Make a Computer be under Computing instead of Miscellaneous? --64.66.99.69 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

No, because it's a how-to guide, not a coursework-style book. Computing would be more for programming, theory, etc. Kellen T 20:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
Then maybe change Computing to Computer Science, since Computing (in some english dialects) may convey some kind of course-style knowledge. Rhetth 22:44, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

reading

Hi, I´m Kaktus-Deutschland from German Wikibooks.I saw this books in my Wikibooks and I think, that this Germanbook is perfect, but i have seen few mistakes. When it´s okay, i would read the book for correcting the wrongs, prefer the German parts! 89.57.19.107 14:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Adding Books.

FIXED I want to add my book Basketball to the games bookshelf. How can I do this? I looked at some guides and they weren't clear.

Thank you,

witerhawk


Categories of Books

Does Mathematics really belong under the heading of "Natural Sciences" ? Perhaps a math heading would be more useful for displaying the myriad of Mathematics materials available on Wikibooks. Natural Sciences does not seem like a heading under which mathematics belongs... --24.3.147.203 01:04, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand your confusion, but mathematics is frequently lumped under the "natural sciences" heading. Many libraries and classification systems use that hierarchy, so it doesnt make much sense to get rid of it. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:21, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Printable books

The current list of printable books looks like it is the complete list. Is it possible to re-instate the option for listing all of the PDFs? RobinH 09:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

This page looks awesome!

I have been off WB for a bit again and coming back this front page strikes me as looking ever so nice! Hats off to the folks that made it happen! --Karl Wick 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest making it clearer that the printable books contain the text as one big .html file

I don't think this is very clear for new users of Wikibooks, and the link to the printable file is teeny tiny --User:tdunne

Fine, i'll be annoying and ask here.

I would like to write a book on improvised munitions, not because of any political beliefs, but because I believe it's obscure and complex knowledge.

Nobody answers in staff lounge. Geez, i'm really gonna have to help pull this place together. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abnerian (talk • contribs) .

Wikibooks has a lot fewer active editors than WP, so responses generally take longer. Right now, a book on improvised munitions might be controversial for a number of different reasons. If you can document that a class on the subject exists, that would certainly make the book's acceptance easier. Kellen T 11:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't get hung up over if there is a class taught on the subject, but I would ask if you are simply going to copy something from Palidin Press or if this is going to be a serious book about munitions in general? I think a more through book about explosives including the history of explosives and how even (I guess you could call them non-improvised) commercial munitions are made. BTW, I think you could find a class on this topic taught at the Ranger School at Ft. Lewis (Washington State), and perhaps at military academies. Just don't try to write a Wikibook like this for shock value that has lame content, but because you really are an expert (ex-military or law enforcement) and want to write this book as a safty guide or as a genuine source of information. Most books like this are written for shock value alone and have incredibly poor content in terms of information about the subject. --Rob Horning 13:20, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
I won't let that happen. And no, this knowledge is firsthand and verifiable. It's not for shock value...And anybody who reads it to make themselves feel dangerous or badass or something has issues, and that isn't my fault. It bothers me, the idea that some information should be freer than others. My political beliefs have very little to do with my skillset. Plus...this stuff is quite complex. You think it'd be alright? --Abnerian 17:31, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect link

The Bosnian language link on the main page redirs to 'bo.wikibooks.org,' which apparently is reserved for Tibetans. The correct link should be 'bs.wikibooks.org'. Can't edit the page so I'm posting here. -Markusbradley 05:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

bo.wikibooks.org says something different. --Derbeth talk 09:48, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Markusbradley:

Please fix the link visible on Main_Page to "Bosnian" to link to to http://bs.wikibooks.org/ , which actually does have books in Bosnian. You need to edit Template:Wikibookslang. I would do it myself, but I can't edit that template.

Yes, the page http://bo.wikibooks.org/ currently claims it is reserved for Bosnian, but I am changing it to conform to http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikibooks#List_of_Wikibooks and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ISO_639-1_codes which agree that:

  • bo : Tibetan
  • bs : Bosnian

--DavidCary 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Protect this

The main page was recently edited with a test, and it was kind of sad that I had to come to the site to see that. I had to check out the link and everything to find out what happened. The main page should be protected so the average person doesn't test-edit or vandalize it. Mason11987 00:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing it. --DavidCary 15:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


Search

Maybe we should have a search logo? Like "our library", or "check out", or something. We need a random article page too with a cool name- "Skim" or "PageFlipping". 71.236.79.160 18:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Links

There are some broken links on this page Minun Spiderman 11:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Error on main page

There is a error on the main page. The link: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a5/Basic_Physics_of_Nuclear_Medicine.pdf does not work or links to a file with a 0kb size. I don't think that I should just remove the (pdf) link. Sethwoodworth 03:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Dealt with & thanks for bringing it to our attention --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We need this!!!

We really need the random module tool on the front page like Wikipedia has it. It is sort of a hassle to get there. Tannersf 03:48, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

That link originally existed and was removed. The community found that a random page does not work well with books of many pages. -withinfocus 06:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it be possible for a random book button instead? This would be more useful than random pages. Xania 21:06, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
I would like to point out that the reason why this link was removed was explicitly because jumping to a random chapter/module in Wikibooks would give you some information that was completely out of context. Indeed having a "random book" might be a better idea, but there are some technical issues to sort out here in order for that to occur. Of most critical importance, the MediaWiki software (that runs Wikibooks and Wikipedia, as well as the other Wikimedia websites) does not support a "jump to random book" code to perform this task. You could add this as a Bugzilla request for some future "feature request", but I would be blunt and suggest that many within the Wikibooks community would not find this to be a very high priority over other features that would be of significantly higher value to improve Wikibooks.
Of course, if you want to get into hacking MediaWiki source code and add such a feature into the code database, you are certainly welcome to dig in and make such changes. That is not a trivial thing to accomplish, and the volunteer software developers are working on other much more pressing matters at the moment. It would also be important to define what, exactly, is defined as a "book", and wheither you want to include book stubs into that mix. With "standardized" naming conventions now on Wikibooks, this is a little easier than in the past, but there are still some unconventional pages that would need to be described on a technical basis to implement this feature. --Rob Horning 03:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Donation...

What the number 8,7xx? Why that number? What is THAT money for? Perhaps putting the exact use of the money up might allow people to feel more generous. --Remi0o 20:58, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia Foundation regularly advertise for donations. Wikimedia projects like Wikibooks are not-for-profit and they rely on donations to continue operating. The money goes towards support, computer servers and general maintenence of Wiki projects. But I agree it would be more useful if they indicated exactly where the money would go. Xania 21:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Ditto to what Xania said. The Wikimedia Foundation is in the middle of a semi-annual (it has been six months or so since the last one) fund raising drive. The annual budget for the Wikimedia Foundation, which pays for the servers and computer equipment, as well as offering legal protection covering the projects and a legal basis for supporting these websites, is rapidly growing if only to support the huge crush of people who use these websites. Bandwidth costs alone are quickly approaching six figures for an annual budget, and the quantity of equipment used for Wikimedia projects doubles about every 18 months or so with the current growth of users.
All of this costs a considerable amount of money, although I would like to point out that the WMF is IMHO one of the better run non-profit organizations (at least fiscally speaking) that I have ever had to deal with. I can say with a high degree of confidence that 80%-90% of all money donated to the WMF is going to be used for operational costs directly related to running this website. The rest is very incidental, although unfortunate due to a number of individuals who try to milk money out of whatever places seem to have any sort of money at all, as the WMF currently is fielding a dozen or so lawsuits of dubious value, but need to be responded to even so.
There are from what I understand two paid staff members who run the "office", and some additional money is also used to help pay travel costs for members of the board of trustees (who are all volunteers at the moment). As this is a project which is truly international in scope, that is hardly a trivial expense for these volunteers who are of modest means themselves.
For more information, please visit http://wikimediafoundation.org/
And thank you for your interest in this matter. --Rob Horning 03:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

COTM and BOTM - replacement

As there is to be no Collaboration of the Month or Book of the Month feature, I think it is imperative that we find something to fill the rather conspicuous hole on the front page. Any ideas? Tommciver 23:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

From my viewpoint, these will return shortly, so there is no point to "filling the hole" at the moment. It might be nice to put in a small box that explains why these common features are missing, and point to perhaps COTM and BOTM votes of the past, with a note that they will resume "soon". These are very useful and important features of Wikibooks, and I don't think they necessarily need to be removed permanently. --Rob Horning 08:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Links to Wikiversity pages are out of date

All the links to the Wikiversity front page and schools that are on the wikibooks front page need to be changed. I can't change it myself because the page is protected. The new wikiversity site is at: http://en.wikiversity.org/

Fixed, but I wonder why should we host links to content of separate project. --Derbeth talk 17:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
I wonder too. I would support removing them barring some convincing argument otherwise — User:Iamunknown 20:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


Web link

To avoid accidental duplication/allow suitable cross referencing can I suggest the World Wide School site www.worldwideschool.org

Jackiespeel 18:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I didn't understand you. What are you suggesting? --User:Iamunknown 23:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Title of Wiki Books!

I understand the subtitled of wikibooks is currently: Think Free. Learn Free. Which i like very much indeed. but i think it should also say 'Read free.' It is just an idea.

Level of Completion

I would like to see the level of completion of a book/chapter/section. This would save time browsing incomplete books and section.

Suminda Sirinath Salpitikorala Dharmasena

Java Applets

What would it take to have the Wiki Foundation accept Java Applets in the wikibooks? This would give the wiki books a true chance to shine above a typical text books by having interactive learning media. For example, an applet could be created that would show students how to solve equations, and provide instant feedback if they are making the right manipulations on the equation. This would be considerably more difficult using just java script. Or a 2d physics kinematics simulator could show students how gravity, force vectors, friction and other elements of classical physics works in a simulated hands on environment. Even if the wiki books were allowed to have the Java Applets only as an experimental feature (like MathML is) it would be a step in the right direction. Any thoughts? 68.74.185.94 17:12, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that a huge reason for no Java applets on Wikibooks is mainly security, particularly when all of the content here is editable by almost anybody. If there is a security hole in Java (and there are several), it will be exploited by a vandal and wreck havoc on people who come to this project, even inadvertantly. I hope that Javascript applets would be permitted eventually, but even that has been restricted and stripped from any web pages that are produced on Wikibooks. --Rob Horning 21:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

New main page

Wikibooks is really here for readers rather than authors. What about Wikibooks:Nearly_complete as a main page? RobinH 15:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

I believe some of the "completed books" information can be incorporated into the current page, but that version looks much too simple and unappealing to me. We could turn some of the completed books info into a column or two in the existing format. -withinfocus 02:51, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
The new main page seems to have been produced for contributors rather than readers. But Wikibooks' goal is to provide books to be read and studied. Commercial sites that provide books concentrate on the books for readers. Here are some examples of commercial ebook sites:
http://www.ebooks.com/
http://www.free-ebooks.net/
http://www.gutenberg.org/wiki/Main_Page
http://www.ebookimpressions.com/
These sites may have close relationships with authors, publishers and hand held PC makers but they scarcely mention this on their main pages. They stick to their main objective which is the provision of books to read.
If Wikibooks:Nearly_complete is too simple and unappealing it could be improved by having images of the front covers for books and short descriptions (like the commercial sites). I have added some of this to Wikibooks:Nearly_complete. However, "simple" is good. RobinH 12:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think simple is good for our front page. We need a columnar layout with nice image headers and colorful backgrounds. I've made some changes to the page, but I think someone should come in and columnize the "good books" we have into a more attractive layout. -withinfocus 15:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I would like to say that I disagree with this premise. Wikibooks is not necessarily for the readers (although that would be a good thing to keep in mind when designing this page), as there are many methods of content delivery once we have some high quality books. Instead, this website is really for the authors who are creating the content, and to help search for what content already exists so we don't have duplicated efforts when people are more willing to collaborate on existing projects. The other e-book websites listed above are mainly for post-production distribution, and don't really relate here to Wikibooks.
Perhaps the best comparable website is: http://www.pgdp.net/c/ (Distributed Proofreaders)
One of the interesting things about this particular website is that they openly encourage gaming the stats in various ways, as long as the quality of what you do contribute remains high. And the number of active participants clearly is more than what Wikibooks has at the moment by at least an order of magnitude, even though the two projects are nearly the same age.
What we really need to do here on this page is to make it appealing to new people to come and join our project, and show where they can perhaps add their new ideas. The latest revisions seem to lack that appeal, which is one of the reasons I pushed for a replacement of the "Book of the Month" display that we had earlier. It needs to be content focused, rather than policy focused if there needs to be some sort of serious change.
I admit that the days are long gone that all significant Wikibooks can be listed on the main page without causing clutter (Wikibooks:All Books used to be on this page), but we still ought to remember why we are here: to help collaboratively write textbooks and other useful book-like material.
Or to paraphrase and significantly borrow a quote from a famous motion picture: If we write the books, the readers will come. We need to make as much of Wikibook as author-friendly as we can, even if it means sacrificing some of the ease of use for a reader. --Rob Horning 06:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Nonetheless, integrating the Wikibooks:Nearly complete page into the Main Page or at least taking what is on Main Page/test and integrating it will be best. The content of the page should at least span a larger space than the interwiki links on the left of the page. I'd like to see all of Wikibooks:Nearly complete present. If someone could turn that page into a template and drop the link into the Main Page it would be excellent. -withinfocus 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I've been very timid in regards to changes on the main page lately. The culling effort has been largely one of reducing the items on the page, although I fail to see what the real harm was with what was displayed just a month ago. There has certainly been a push and pull of what could be on here, so I'm not trying to complain too loudly about the most recent changes.
The only real difference from the test page to what is currently displayed right now on the "live" page is the "Selected Books" section. This could be rolled into the effort I have done with the featured Wikibooks, and we could even have the selection go into a rotation with multiple books listed on the main page. We don't have to have just one book at a time.
I havn't been too happy about the very arbitrary nature that some of the "selected" or "good" Wikibooks have been determined, even though those who have been editing the main page have done a good job of making the decisions for good and bad Wikibooks. It just seems like a ripe target for an edit war if you have some strong opinions and a couple of admins don't agree with that opinion. I tried to come up with an alternative approach with WB:FbN, where those with strong opinions would have an outlet that can be kept under control, and flame wars can be isolated from the content itself. There certainly have been some juicy wars on the WB:VfD pages, but once concensus has been reached most people go along with the decision gracefully. I hope to keep this civil, but there are people with huge egos here on Wikibooks (myself included), and we need to somehow find a way to keep that in check. --Rob Horning 17:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
There seems to be a little confusion. The "Selected Books" section on the test page is intended to be an example of what the featured books section is suppose to look like, rather than a separate thing. The books listed there however though were not intended to be picked books, just an example of what it looks like. --darkYin yang.svglama 17:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I haven't really been involved with the Main Page changes, but I was among those who didn't like the old one. What I didn't like was the long sections of tiny blue text... it reminded me a bit too much of the side of a cereal box :). I think keeping it simple and pretty should be the goal, perhaps having "subpages" which provide more detail (but keep those simple, pretty, and 12 pt font as well). Much as Wikibooks really is a bit of a jumble, maybe we don't need to have the jumble on the main page. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:37, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I would like to try and keep the Wikijunior "new book of the quarter" section somewhere on this page too, but I'm not exactly sure where that would fit with the featured book example on the test version. Yes, I do realize that it was a sample, and in fact the color scheme is perhaps something worth doing as well (using the brown/warm tones instead of the current blue box I added). I am open to having some other changes here to improve the appearance on this page. I also realize that much of what was pulled out of this main page was to cut down on the pile of text and to give it more of an appearance of perhaps a free-content book store. --Rob Horning 18:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I just happened to pop by here. I havn't been here for quite a while, but I want to say that your old main page was way better (from an asethically pleasing point of view). Bawolff 00:56, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Overtones?

I'm worried about the communist overtones of Wikibooks.

Interesting. I'm not worried at all. --Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 16:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No random page button?

Why?

Not that useful here since that would direct to individual pages of books almost all the time, something difficult to use in the proper context. -withinfocus 13:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

croatian wikibooks

without knowing where to refer, i place my request here. croatian wikibooks rose well above 100 so i am asking to refresh that information in templates referring to the size of wikibooks. thanks. West Brom 4ever 23:15, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

2 weeks later, i repeat my request. West Brom 4ever 15:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
This page is not well-watched, if you want a response I would suggest posting this at the Staff lounge, all of those pages seem to be well-watched by the community. Regards. Mattb112885 (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Also I'm not quite sure which templates you're referring to. If you send a link I'll try and fix it, and if I don't know how I'm sure someone else here does. Regards, Mattb112885 (talk) 16:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

ok, thanks for your help. let me check out these links please. West Brom 4ever 18:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

The links that you are talking about are not hosted here, they can be found [HERE at META]. I will put in your request at that page, but in the future you can go there first. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Featured book icons...

Aesthetically it may look more pleasing to remove the icons and just put the text and other links above the description. --Remi 08:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I would disagree, i think the images in general help to make the advertisements more pleasing. I will say, however, that some of the books don't lend themselves well to suck thumbnails, and for those few books the thumbs really do look awkward. I dont think removing the images will be a general improvement, but i am open to being proven wrong. If you want to throw together a new template to showcase your ideas, we can compare the two side-by-side and decide as a community which one is better. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

lyrics / songtext book

Is a book about lyrics/songtexts a valuable thing for the wikipedians? Does it have a great change of people are willing to expand it? My idea was to start with a wiki lyric book. I could not find any. Kassie 18:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

First of all, Wikibooks is not for books, but for textbooks (education-oriented). Secondly, most of lyrics are copyrighted. These, which are not, are suitable for Wikisource. And BTW, I don't feel a wikipedian, rather a wikibookian. --Derbeth talk 19:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As Derbeth said, unfortunately most current popular songs are copyrighted and as Wikimedia is based in the USA this means that copyright laws must be respected. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 20:26, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
As a caveat, it would be possible to write an "annotated text" about a song. Also, if used in limited (extremely limited) quantities, song lyrics could be published under a "fair use" license for academic analysis.
Now, if the lyrics you are talking about are not copyrighted (that is that they are over 100 years old) you can post them directly to wikisource. Or, if they aren't copyrighted, you can post them to wikibooks as part of an annotated text without having to invoke fair use, and without having to limit the quantity of lyrics you use.
Besides these exceptions, it is generally not a good idea to have a lyrics book here. --Whiteknight (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
I never thought about legal issues. Thanks for all the replies.
@Whiteknight, please explain why you think lyrics ain't such good idea? Kassie 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I only discourage it because wikibooks is for "textbooks", not any type of random non-fiction book. There arent many classes in this world that study song lyrics, at least not lyrics for modern songs (famous musicals and operas are a different story, of course). If you wanted to use song lyrics here, you would have an uphill battle to prove the book was academic. --Whiteknight (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. Kassie 19:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Children's books

wikibook is messed up. there is no section for children's book. where is it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.80.57.214 (talk • contribs) .

  • I would say that although Wikijunior is the "children's book center" for Wikibooks, it would be nice to restore the section about Wikijunior somehow to the front page again. I realize that there are several Wikijunior books in the featured book rotation, but the previous "advertsement" of Wikijunior did help with bringing fresh ideas and new users into the development of Wikijunior content. The current design of this page has significantly de-emphasized Wikijunior, although this Wikibooks sub-project does have a side-bar link. --Rob Horning 19:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
On the front page I think we should show 5 featured books (can include cookbook and junior books), 1 featured Wikijunior book and 1 cookbook recipe. Xania Flag of Italy.svgtalk 19:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This kind of goes back to what I've tried to suggest before. Having one book from each department. I agree with having 5 featured books and including cookbook and wikijunior books as part of that. I think there should be in each rotation exactly:
  • 1 book from the Natural and Social Science departments
  • 1 book from the Computing department
  • 1 book from the Humanities and Arts department
  • 1 book from the Cookbook
  • 1 book from Wikijunior
in order to give variety, show all that Wikibooks has to offer, and bring fresh ideas and new users into the development of all types of books. I disagree with emphasizing only Wikijunior, one specific project, or one part of Wikibooks. Wikijunior in addition to being linked to from the sidebar is also linked to from the main page under Special Groups. --darklama 20:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikitextbooks

Why is it wiki books instead of wiki textbooks? I got this completely confused with wikisource for awhile. Mathiastck 15:16, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a good question, although there isn't as much confusion over the names as you might think. In general, "wikibooks" is much more catchy and easy to remember then "wikitextbooks" or "wiki textbooks" or even "wikimedia textbooks" or any other variant. If i had been around when they named it, i might have suggested "wikitext" or something like that, although even "wikitext" comes with a certain amount of ambiguity as well. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:10, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Dead link

There appears to be a dead image link on the mainpage. --Remi 23:58, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Um....no? I don't see any dead links. What image was it? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

random book link not working

random book link not working and i have no clue how to fix it

thanks

12.47.139.226 20:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

That feature is not enabled here since its abilities don't make sense with what our site offers -- full books and not just individual pages. -withinfocus 22:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like we've got something that works fine now, I just noticed it myself about a week ago. -withinfocus 14:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Economics is a Social Science

“Economics” should not be lumped in with “Business”. Economics is a theoretical and empirical science that examines production, exchange, and decision making in human society, whereas Business is an applied art that sometimes makes use of Economic reasoning. Essentially, Economics is to Business as Physics is to Photography. Many schools, such as MIT (http://web.mit.edu/shass/dspc/) list Economics as a “Social Science”. M040 22:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you see something you would like to have changed, we encourage you to be bold and change it! Maybe it should go in both places, but I'm not one to argue since I don't know much about economics. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Link correction needed

See: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Jokebook Correct link: http://www.its-a-trap.com/wiki/index.php/Main_Page (most probably)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page/Archive_4"