Talk:Wikijunior

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

See also: Archive 1, Archive 2

Contents 1 I'm for a book about good books for kids 2 why don't set up a simple engish wikijunior? 3 Put a formal end to voting 4 Simple English Wikibooks merger 5 Reviewed Version Notice 6 Facelift 6.1 Welcome to Wikijunior 7 Style guide

[edit] I'm for a book about good books for kids

I would like to see a book containing book reviews. I would like to contribute reviews of books by Holling Clancey Holling like "Paddle to the Sea," the "Swallows and Amazons" books and their video tie-ins, and "Banners at Shenandoah" by the noted historian Bruce Catton.

[edit] why don't set up a simple engish wikijunior?

why don't set up a simple engish wikijunior?C933103 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikijunior is already supposed to use simple English. --Jomegat (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It's also my understanding that Wikimedia/foundation/whatever will not support anymore 'simple' versions. Requests to create a Simple Wikinews were rejected with the statement that it's not a language. That seems to be the majority opinion in wikiworld (or at least the majority opinion of administrators and people with a lot of time on their hand) although I love the idea of simple versions but that's just me. I also can't see the point in having multiple language versions of Wiktionary when having one giant combined one which shows translations in each language would be so much better.--ЗAНИA ^talk 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe voice your opinion on Wiktionary at m:Proposals for new projects? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

One of the criteria for opening a new Wikimedia project is that it has to have a valid language code. Not being a real language Simple English has no language code, and thus new projects in that "language" will not be created. But if you're writing books for children, you should be using simple English already. It's not "Simple English", but it is a simplified form of English. Just go ahead and write the book in simple English, or Simple English if that's what you want. It's still English, regardless of the name that's given to it. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Put a formal end to voting

Since there hasn't been a vote since I left (more than 2 years ago) I think that we should remove all references to voting for titles from Wikijunior. Does anyone have any objections? Should I put this question somewhere else? xixtas ^talk 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to me to be something not to move hastily on. Some sort of standards are needed; if what is now called for isn't being followed, then some combination of adjusting rules and adjusting practices may be called for. I seem to recall looking into what is proper procedure some time back (probably between one and two years ago) and finding somewhere an invitation to go ahead and create wikijunior books without a vote, but I think it was qualified (how, I'm not sure). The first thing to do is, presumably, to assemble a list of what is said where about proper procedure. I might be able to find time to do this sometime in the next week or so...

See also the above thread #What replaced voting? --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. xixtas ^talk 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree (having spent a few days poking about) that references to voting should be removed from this page. Further action may be called for thereafter, but there's no reason to hold off on removing the confusing and inaccurate claims about a nonexistent voting procedure.

My vague recollection of an invitation to go ahead and create WJ books without a vote probably evolved from the following passage, which was written on 11 February 2007 by (wait for it) Xixtas, on meta:Wikijunior, with edit summary "Update to reflect the reality of the current state of the project.":

The site is currently working towards completion of several books. There are 10 sanctioned titles under development along with several unsanctioned organic titles.

For perspective on the rise and fall of voting and the New Title "Policy", here are a few snapshots from the past:

• August 2008: Discussion that led to the "not used" notices on Wikijunior:New Title Suggestions and Wikijunior:New Book Collaboration Vote/July 2007 Vote. (The book in question, BTW, was Wikijunior:American Founding Fathers.)
• November 2005: Announcement of the quarterly voting process.
• October 2005: Discussion to create the quarterly voting process.
• 17 August 2005: The first revision of Wikijunior:New Title Policy.

As for how to go on from here, a few stray thoughts:

• There do need to be some sort of standards for the placement of titles on the main page. It's not entirely clear to me how the addition is now handled, and I suspect that it isn't.
• Any sort of consensus process for adding titles to the list(s) here should take place somewhere that a fair number of people will actually have on their watchlists; one can't build very much consensus by talking to oneself in an empty room. The two possible venues that come to mind are this page — but I'm not sure there are enough regulars here, in the sense of people who would not only notice a question here, but think of it as being addressed to them — or Wikibooks:Reading room/General.

--Pi zero (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see if there are any other comments. Thanks for the research. A few of those I hadn't read, and even the stuff I wrote I only vaguely recall. :) xixtas ^talk 04:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Since darklama has now tagged Wikijunior:New Title Policy as obsolete, I've commented out the whole section. If and when we choose something to replace it with, its place will be there waiting. --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed the rest of the references to voting on the front page. I also changed the book collaboration template to remove references to voting. I think this is a really good step forward. xixtas ^talk 02:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English Wikibooks merger

Hey gang,

While I'm sure you all noticed the discussion in the reading room, I wanted to draw to your attention a comment I made at Wikibooks talk:Simple English merger#Wikijunior material. Essentially, the simplified English seems to have simplified the content as well to the point that it would fit quite well into the upper Wikijunior age range. Please join the discussion and share your views. --Swift (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. xixtas ^talk 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewed Version Notice

Does anyone object to moving the notice about the reviewed version to the bottom of the page? --xixtas ^talk 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't. I guess it's been there long enough for regular readers who might be surprised by the change. --Swift (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Go ahead! QU ^TalkQu 11:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Done -- xixtas ^talk 04:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Facelift

I just gave the front page a bit of a face-lift. For those concerned: I figured I'd comment on my changes here:

I replaced the picture which I felt was perhaps a bit bland. Wikijunior wants to be engaging so I chose a picture of a child immersed in a colourful pop-up book. It could really use some cropping, though.

I lightened the colours considerably. If we want to use strong colours, I suggest we widen the borders, but leave the background intact. I found the dark-blue in particular hard to read on.

I merged a couple of the table cells/boxes (the yellow and the orange). I felt they were on a similar enough of a topic: How to contribute to or discuss content. That left the featured books in a wide box below. I'm not too happy with the layout and I guess we could look at how to format the templates without messing up other pages.

Criticism welcome. --Swift (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the new layout.

I do have a couple of concerns about the new picture. I find it visually difficult to parse. Some of that would be alleviated by cropping; but some of it is cluttered central background, and some of it is that, even at full size, the fact that it's a pop-up book doesn't... leap out at you. The old picture was visually simple, so that you knew instantly what you were looking at. My other concern is that, once one does parse the new picture, the pop-up book suggests a more elementary level than most of the books here aspire to. --Pi zero (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm game for a makeover. One thing right off the bat, I don't care for the new picture at all. IMO a pop up book sends the wrong message. But I'm inclined to leave it until we find something better. I darkened the background colors because the very light colors seem very bland to me. I believe they are still lighter than before. I believe wide borders are generally poor information design. I moved the search box above the titles because it didn't work for me sandwiched between the text talking about the titles and the links to them. -- xixtas ^talk 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

(Wow Commons is a trackless jungle.) One image I've stumbled across is this 1905 illustration for A Child's Garden of Verses. (I also tried out File:Child with red hair reading.jpeg, but it was much less engaging.) 150px seemed to me to be about the right size.

--Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that the current picture is nowhere near optimal, but I prefer it over the old one and the one above because it makes it clear that these are not novels. Maybe I'm being silly and even encouraging a stereotype that educational books cannot be pure text or read in the sofa. What I do like about the current picture is that the boy is totally immersed in the book (much like the girl in the picture above). If you look more closely, you see that it's a pop-up book, but also that he actually seems to be reading — not just being amused by the figures. A picture that shows children (preferably in the upper age-range) dug into obviously educational material is what I went looking for at commons. A picture of students discussing a book would also fit well into the ideas of constructivism and social constructivism.

Still, I'm not quite satisfied with the picture I chose. In the end the picture will hardly make or break the project. We could even play around with several; leaving them up for a while and seeing how we like it. --Swift (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior is not about novels, but neither is it about pop-up books, which are more toys than books. -- xixtas ^talk 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I get the opposite impression from Swift about these pictures: the pop-up book is the only one that really doesn't look educational to me. The one above has a plain cover (speaking of stereotypes); note that the Wikibook that uses it is Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education. BTW, I almost always read educational books on the sofa :-). --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

:-) Well, I've seen good educational books that use pop-ups (and many others that use "interactive" features). That said, I fully understand what people may have against having one on the front cover and won't be the slightest bit upset if anyone changes it. Happy hunting. --Swift (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've put up the Wilcox picture, to give it a try and see how it wears. --Pi zero (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Style guide

Knowing there was some sort of WJ style guide (that I hadn't looked at in ages) and wanting to consult it, but not being sure exactly what it was called (and being lazy, of course), I went to the WJ main page and... discovered there wasn't any link to it there. So I've added one, and while I was at it I also created a shortcut, WJ:SG. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)