User talk:Adrignola/2009/08

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svg

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Contents

Categorization stuff

In response to a few of my questions that came up in the reading room, I have gone through all pages generated a list of books, more or less by hand. I was planning to work my way through this and see which books were missing subject/DCC/LOC/Alphabetization tags. Anything I come across I am just going to add empty tags to, and thereby populate the appropriate maintenance categories. Somehow I thought you'd like to know to check these lists every so often, and I will probably not start sorting out these until I am done populating the lists. Somehow this seemed better to me then trying to put things into subjects quickly, and possibly making mistakes.

I have a thought about one of the issues I raised in the reading room about the Orphaned page list. I think most (and maybe eventually all) books will be linked from the Category that contains the pages of their books, so I am not entirely sure even if we get rid of bookshelves that there would be any problem with this list. Thenub314 (talk) 11:44, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That's right! They will be linked from their category and then be removed from the orphaned page list. I had completely forgotten about that. I think your plan for putting empty tags on is fine, as the pages would otherwise only show up in Alphabetical. I did a bit of work trimming the orphaned page list yesterday and will likely continue to work on that while you do this. The good news is that we've cleared uncategorized categories and pages. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I will be interested to see how many books end up not having alphabetical tags. There may be has many as 200-300 hundred depending on the number of soft redirects that exist. (At least that is the magnitude of the difference between the number of books on my list and the number give by {{NUMBEROFBOOKS}}. Thenub314 (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Your recent changes to {{infobox}} and to the related css has caused all the old infoboxes to display nothing. That is why someone created {{infobox2}} for templates imported from Wikipedia. I think the template needs to be restored to its original state or all the old infoboxes deleted. --darklama 17:48, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the old infoboxes should be deleted since they no longer operate correctly anyway. The old code has been restored, however, since I do not desire to delete them all without support from others. I don't think it was a smart move to deviate such a highly-used template from its original form as imported from Wikipedia (the oldest revisions match up with Wikipedia's template history). -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:03, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe the template wasn't as highly used back when Wikibooks first used it. I know you imported its revision history so its hard to tell for sure where the local history beings now... --darklama 18:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well that would explain the oldest revisions matching up. Don't I feel embarrassed for forgetting. The current infobox could be updated for the current Wikibooks structure and placed at a new name and infobox2 moved to the old location, if we wanted to avoid confusion. Assuming the functionality infobox provides is still desired. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noticed that mboxes no longer have visible borders. (Recall that besides providing visual coherence, those borders are color-coded.) Might this have been caused by the above-mentioned css tinkering? --Pi zero (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

They still have colors when I view them. The "message box types" on Template:Mbox have grey borders and a color splotch on the left, and the image message boxes have a colored border and a color splotch on the bottom. That's how I've always seen them. I cleared my cache and they still look that way. Darklama removed the duplicate code for infoboxes and none of it should have affected the mboxes in the first place. They use class "messagebox" and not "infobox". -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, that made it seem likely that the problem was on my end, so I did some poking around. Not exactly on my end, apparently — the problem occurs for me only, and consistently, on the secure server. I don't know exactly how long the problem has been there, because it's been a few days since I last visited a page that would show it; it could be just since this morning, or anytime in the last few days (but I'm fairly certain I visited one of those pages sometime earlier this week). --Pi zero (talk) 21:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this secure server you refer to, but I'm glad we've determined that it's not something affecting everyone. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikibooks/en/wiki/Main_Page
On the login page (that I see, anyway) for  en.wikipedia.org  (but not  en.wikibooks.org), under Secure your account:, the first bulleted item is
The secure server can be used to access all the projects, but interwiki links from inside the secure server — such as the sister-project links at the bottom of the main page — don't go to the secure server, so using it exclusively requires a certain amount of stubbornness (which, as it happens, I have). --Pi zero (talk) 00:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
... and the problem has disappeared. --Pi zero (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate it when that happens. I'll probably still use the regular server because it seems faster to me (which starts to add up with as many edits as I make when doing maintenance). -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:18, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I made the problem disappear by using the full address rather than relative addresses for @imports in the css file. --darklama 01:23, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

BTEC Applied Science forum

Adrignola,

Please could you restore the forum page for the book? I haven't done any work on the book lately but hope to change that. The forum had a very long list of discussions from other sites which teachers of the course would find useful.

Ewen (talk) 11:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. The page appeared to not be used by the book. Taking a closer look, I see why. It was linked to with an absolute link as if it were an external site from the book's table of contents. Thus, it showed up in the orphaned pages list. I've restored the page and also fixed the table of contents link so that the page properly shows up as being linked to. I apologize for any inconvenience. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:51, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks. Ewen (talk) 12:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

How to use a Bullworker

I've already notified the user who tagged the page User_talk:Sigma_7#How_to_use_a_Bullworker here.--Launchballer (talk) 07:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

On this it says Copyright 1980, can you check this? (I suspect its under copyright) Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
It seems Launchballer is requesting licensing information here, but unless I see otherwise, this is a copyright violation. Labeling the images public domain doesn't fly with me either because I haven't seen a statement by the company stating such and the works are not old enough to go PD due to age. The clock is ticking before these are deleted. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


2 Button Mens Suits

Can you delete this article. It has no meaningful content and seems to be spammy. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I have toned down the links and provided 2 other alternatives. In any case the page does have content that shouldn't be lost, talking with the page creator and educating him seems more productive, I also think the page should be renamed (haven't searched for other works that could use the content). --Panic (talk) 19:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Check the page history if the 3 contributors that attempted to flood the page with the same link are identical or from the same range a block of the most recent ones should be considered as the action demonstrates bad faith. --Panic (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
I've initiated a VFD so to address the conflicting views and avoid the speedy. --Panic (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't the the accounts suspected of being sockpuppets used with the clearly abusive intention not be targeted for administrative action (if really under the same IP, get an indefinite block) and the primary notified and warned not to do it again? --Panic (talk) 01:45, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what you are talking about, no offense. Generally, sockpuppets would have to be confirmed by a CheckUser like Mike.lifeguard before action can be taken. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:48, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
If you can still take a look into the edit history of the page one user created and added the "spam" link, another 2 accounts have edited the same page and added the same link to the that page (IIRC I checked one of them and that was the only edit made, that is why I made that note above "Check the page history if the 3 contributors that attempted to flood the page with the same link are identical or from the same range a block of the most recent ones should be considered as the action demonstrates bad faith." (and later moved it to the VFD discussion). Not a big issue but this can be hard to detect (due to the time lag used and multiple accounts). I think Geoff Plourde only noted that activity because of the tag of query that was later removed.
Dealing with this issues will also help in case of collision in user names later on. --Panic (talk) 02:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I posted a note on Mike.lifeguard's page for a follow-up to this. Stay tuned. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Foundations of Education and Instructional Assesment

Spoke to Pbaker of Old Dominion, he said that this is redundant and can be deleted. Thanks ( Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

C++ Orphaned pages

Can you please move the list in the page C++ Programming/Editor's Chapters needing work (bottom) above the line . Thanks, I would do it myself but as it is a signed post...
As for the "this book is dead due to immaturity" comment, the book is not dead... --Panic (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The list of orphans has been moved. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Cookbook:Zucchine ripiene

Found this in the Revewing pool, please shoot at earliest convenience Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete this page posts

I noted that you made this posts on the All Chapter and Print Version and noted by the first time that these pages are now included on the Category "Pages where template include size is exceeded" is this a new thing what made this happen ? I note also that the Ada Programming also is listed there (also a huge book) and I had envisioned using this system in another two books that I've been working out. It is a major help (to me it didn't/doesn't take more that 12 seconds to load the C++ Programming page) and is used there to generate the PDF file (so the book that use it, or intend to support such features will be highly impacted in their usefulness). What can be done ? --Panic (talk) 01:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Help:Collections seems to imply that you can specify the many pages of a book individually and it will coalesce them together into a PDF when you select that as the output file. I'm not too familiar with it, but I would imagine you could use this to generate the PDF and when people want to print, they can print each of the chapter print versions (which will actually load all their transcluded templates) in turn. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:25, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
This implies that the automation will be broken and increases (with a high chance of probability) that something will be missing from those print versions (on the C++ Programming I will try to negotiate with the most stable parts of the book). For now I will replace the pages with a note to users (since most people will not understand the category tag and can get to print the incomplete version, I will also add a note on the Ada book to the same effect). I had a message from someone that was marrowing the C++ programming in a local install of the Wikimedia software. I'll try to contact him to see if I understand what happened/was changed... --Panic (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
The book was not using Help:Collections to generate the PDFs but WikiType that has a more user friendly interface to generate the PDF. --Panic (talk) 01:38, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Excluding templates from print versions

I gather you've been looking for a way to include a navbox-type template in content pages only when they are viewed directly, leaving out the navbox when the content pages are transcluded into a print version? (At least, that's what I imagined to be your motivation when, a while back, I noticed you trying some such experiment at Wikijunior:Languages, which has all those obnoxious explicit noincludes on the content pages.) So I was wondering what you'd think of this technique: In slowly gearing up to add automatic print-version generation to the Template:Navlist suite, I've set up {{Navlist/Top}} and {{Navlist/Bottom}} so that they wrap everything in

{{#ifeq:{{SUBPAGENAME}}|Print version|| ... }}

— omitting the navboxes just from pages with that subpagename. It is then a bit fussy to generate wiki markup that involves pipes and such; I actually didn't bother, just used html TABLE instead, although I know there are a bunch of templates for generating wiki markup in just this sort of situation. --Pi zero (talk) 13:35, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I have some templates I will integrate that into. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This quantum world

Would it be ok for me to move this to This Quantum World, which would appear to be the correct title? Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There are 51 subpages though. An admin can move those all at once, but you'd have to do so individually. If you're up to it, go ahead. Otherwise I can do so later today in one go when I have a chance. -- Adrignola talk contribs 21:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks for doing it! 75.111.20.112 (talk) 02:38, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Is that you, Geoff? :P -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I believe it is. Geoff Plourde (talk) 18:56, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Template changes

Well then, apparently you haven't considered people with JavaScript turned off, or those who get "A Runtime Error has occurred / Object doesn't support this property or method"! Wikis are supposed to be a text-based site, not a Web 2.0 app. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 13:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I do use a modern browser, but in case you haven't heard, all such "modern browsers" have allowed user access to an options page, where they can enable/disable stuff according to their own agenda. And even if i were to use lynx, why do you want to keep content hidden from non-state-of-the-art users?
Also, "Web 2.0 sites often feature a rich, user-friendly interface based on Ajax" -- can you tell the difference between often and always?
Third, do show me a page in the Muggles' Guide that includes a picture (and not an iconic picture). And anyway, multimedia does not mean dynamic, and doesn't require JS.
Lastly, i do have JS on, but apparently the code you're advocating is not bug-free. Do fix that before pushing it forth to thousands/millions of viewers. I wonder if you (or anyone else) have tested it on microbrowsers before deploying... -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the timing, but i just noticed this now, when i needed to check the name of a chapter and didn't see it anywhere. If you look in my contribs, you'll see a large gap between March 1st and July 28th. :-| -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:13, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, i'm not 100% positive it's in the {{displaytitle}}. I've been getting a similar error on random pages (e.g., Chazz's talk page, but not yours); any suggestions on how to debug it (if i free up some time to look into what's wrong)? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that interested in a PDF version, since it's most likely huge and i usually have internet access, so i can check the most up-to-date version in the environment that i am very familiar with. Does the PDF include internal links? I'll try to check Fx and see if i can reproduce the issues and find out what causes them.

Also, about the code in question, i am not sure i completely get it. The way i see it, "#ifeq" will have three parameters, value to compare against, "then" branch, and "else" branch. Well, if i read it right, why would the "else" branch worry about print issues, when it's supposed to not be related to the "print version"? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:46, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Then the "printonly" div in the previous revisions was pretty much useless, and if i now change that "else" branch, the changes will only show online, and will not have any effect on the PDF, right? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining.

I believe i have found the culprit: "hasAttribute" hasn't been supported in IE before version 8, and my current environment only has IE7 and Fx (which sadly crashes from time to time, so i avoid it). The "unsafe" line of code comes from MediaWiki:Common.js/Displaytitle.js itself though... What do you think could be done about this? -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 15:35, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it has improved, but only partially: no longer "Object doesn't support this property or method" in line 12, now it's "'Node' is undefined" in line 37. -- Jokes Free4Me (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Can't move page...

I was attempting to move C++ Programming/Enumerations (one of the orphans you found) to C++ Programming/Variables/emun but can't even get the normal move page. I get the No target page, stating that "You have not specified a target page or user to perform this function on." but I'm not given the page to enter it. A temporary problem within Wikimedia ? --Panic (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Must have been. I had no problems moving it. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Txs... --Panic (talk) 03:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
My bad, it should have been enum not emun (as in enumeration). Still can't move and have now tested it again with FF in a Virtual Machine running Linux (with no add-ons) and on anther machine...
I have found the issue, if using the classic skin (the second on the list) in the user prefs, Wikibookians can't move pages. Can you re-check it and post this bug where appropriate ? (I've tested it here again by reversing the skins and attempting a new rename). --Panic (talk) 03:59, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
I tried using the classic skin and had no problem moving a page in my user space. I can't reproduce it.-- Adrignola talk contribs 12:27, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Ok reduced it to the books with ++ in the name (testes it with pages in the C++ Programming book and Understanding C++). So using the classic skin in the user prefs, Wikibookians can't move pages from books that have "++" in the name (probably only one would break it).
This should be related somehow with the fix so Wikimedia can support those chars on page names. --Panic (talk) 19:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup on aisle 12

Last night some vandals decided to celebrate. Please block User:Alec Tgint (vandalism) and 117.197.201.89 (spam). Also please delete About sex, obscenity, Jean-Claude Rodet, and All free software downloads website. Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, az got it Geoff Plourde (talk) 08:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
However, A-level Applied Science/Energy Transfer Systems/Respiration and A-level Biology/Central Concepts/Populations and interactions need to go Geoff Plourde (talk) 20:03, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Taken care of, now that I'm conscious. :) -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

A Wonderful Indian History

Closed the VfD for this, just a heads up Geoff Plourde (talk) 03:56, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the VfD discussion for "A Wonderful Indian History". Our Wikibooks:Deletion policy requires us to reach some sort of "consensus" before deleting a Wikibook listed on Wikibooks:Votes for deletion, right?
I see 3 commenters in favor of "not deleting immediately", and 1 commenter in favor of deleting -- the same commenter who then deleted that Wikibook. That doesn't look like a consensus to delete to me. --DavidCary (talk) 03:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
You should read the comments more closely. They were only keep because, at the time, the page was recently created. The page was then queried for over a week. With no activity since creation and no meaningful content added, it qualified for a speedy deletion. Also take a look at when the discussion started, when the comments were posted, and then finally when the page was actually deleted. Had you actually taken a look at what this page contained? A single sentence hardly warrants a full-blown VfD discussion. Had it started as a {{delete}} and been changed to a {{vfd}} it might have been different. As it was I felt enough time had passed to see if it would develop further; the author had been notified via a query; and comments against were not related to the book but rather the timing of the nomination. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:54, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Sample Syllabus

Please delete Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:04, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow! You must be psychic!!! Geoff Plourde (talk) 16:05, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Categories of the Songbook

You delete some categories of the "Songbook". But the Songbook needs much more categories. In the German version of the Songbook there are around 30 subcategories some are made for a guitar-course, outer are for the kind of song. http://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Kategorie:Liederbuch

  • American-Folk
  • Ballads
  • Child song
  • Christmas songs
  • Classical music
  • Folk-Songs
  • Guitar Course
  • Gospel
  • Hawaii Music
  • Hymn
  • Instrumental
  • Irish-Folk
  • Latin
  • New Song
  • proofreading
  • Song accompaniment
  • Songs
  • Songs by genre
  • Songs without genre
  • Swing
  • Tablature
  • Christmas songs
  • Songs by language
    • Songs in German
    • Songs in English
    • Songs in French
    • Hawaiian songs
    • Songs in Hebrew
    • Creole songs
    • Songs in Spanish

As you can surely imagine, these categories for a song book are very meaningful. These Songbook is not only made for itself. It is also a reference for outer book-projects that may be started.

Could you help me to establish the right categories or help me by finding a workable solution, because I'm not familiar with the habits of the English wikibooks. And my English is definitely not the best one.--Mjchael (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

If these are needed, they should be of the name Songbook/American-Folk and Songbook/Ballads to indicate they are specific to a book rather than general categories that books are filed in. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, I will keep it! --Mjchael (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
I've created the first few for you for Auld Lang Syne. -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Bullworker (cont.)

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it seems the clock has run out on this. There still is no proof of PD being applicable and a preponderance that it is still under copyright. Geoff Plourde (talk) 19:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to agree. Written confirmation that the original copyright owner of the text in the scanned manual has released it into the public domain must be provided. Bullworker may fall under trademark law, but the manual falls under copyright law. -- Adrignola talk contribs 21:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
What about the main page for it? Should it go too? Geoff Plourde (talk) 21:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:41, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Upgrate of the Todo-Template

pleas check Template_talk:Todo#Suggestion! --Mjchael (talk) 17:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Archiving WB:VFD

Hello, When you archive discussion on VFD, can you please leave the header linked to the page/book/whatever and archive that header in the subpage rather than leaving it on the main page? Thank you  — Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My mergeto pages

Was the non deletion of the redirects left behind intentional ? I was going to re-tag the pages as speedy but maybe you had some other idea... --Panic (talk) 19:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It was. The pages were still linked to. If you can correct all the links to the redirects to point to the destination pages, the redirects can be deleted. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I examined only one and the links seemed only to be due to trasnclusion of your post on the orphans. I'll check all in detail then and report to you then... --Panic (talk) 20:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
C++ Programming/Arrays, C++ Programming/Multi-Paradigm are ok for deletion (no relevant links to be fixed, removing for the orphan list would fix any of the remaining references). --Panic (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Taken care of. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

A Wonderful Indian History

I still don't understand the VfD discussion for "A Wonderful Indian History". I carefully read, as you suggested at User_talk:Adrignola/2009/08#A_Wonderful_Indian_History, the comments at Wikibooks:Votes for deletion/A Wonderful Indian History.

I count exactly one (1) person in favor of deleting.

Our Wikibooks:Deletion policy requires us to reach some sort of "consensus" before deleting a Wikibook listed on Wikibooks:Votes for deletion.

Last time I checked, one (1) person was not a consensus. --DavidCary (talk) 10:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The page was queried for over a week and had no meaningful content. Comments made stated that it was too soon to discuss its deletion. When it was finally deleted, it was nearly two weeks and nothing was heard from the original author and nothing was added to the page. Yes, it was listed on Votes for Deletion. However, VFDs have been closed as speedy deletes before should the book meet the criteria. Further, the person who put it on the VFD page just saw the tag on it and felt obligated to start a discussion to correspond with the tag. However, a later edit by the person who originally put a VFD tag on there changed it to a query, leading me to believe the VFD discussion was not originally intended. I frankly don't think you've seen the "book" in question given your insistence on a full-blown VFD discussion for two short sentences. -- Adrignola talk contribs 11:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Chess pages

Hi, Please stop deleting pages in Chess/ just because they are orphaned does NOT mean they are not used. We now have many dead links from wikipedia pages. So many will have to go recreate them. e.g w: Indian Defence links to Chess/Indian_Defense. 23:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW the claim on the page deletion that they are orphaned redirect is also incorrect. They are all linked within wikibooks from Talk:Chess/Index_of_chess_topics SunCreator (talk) 23:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you help with much of the moving of pages from 'Opening theory in chess' to 'Chess Opening Theory'. Great that you make many changes even if a few mistakes. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The move created a great deal of double redirects, which I did try to correct. It seemed to me that the page you referenced was severely out of date, linking to incorrectly placed pages (not following naming convention).
If Wikipedia is linking to pages on Wikibooks, I find it odd that redirects were created and the Wikipedia linked to the redirects, rather than Wikipedia linked to the destination page in the first place. Linking to a page created as a redirect means a single page move (as was the case in the book's renaming) causes all the links to that redirect to not work since they are double redirects. This would be something to keep in mind. I am sorry for any inconvenience, however. I can see about fixing links on Wikipedia now that you've pointed this out; they need to be fixed due to the move anyway. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi, no /Chess/Page redirects where not out of date. They where in use and correct until book renamed. All they required was link updating with new book name. Anyway seems lot of effort for removal of a few redirect pages. But as it is partly done a full list of wikipedia chess pages are found at w:Index_of_chess_articles#Opening_articles. SunCreator (talk) 13:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've gone through the list and corrected all the links in the articles, including the links to the Chess/ pages. -- Adrignola talk contribs 21:22, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for supporting me in my reviewer request. Moby-Dick4000 (talk) 00:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Rotational motion

Sorry, I thought that GFDL didn't require such attribution. I think that the content is most appropriate for High school physics but that there is definitely enough possible content for a Rotational Motion book (right now it is just scattered throughout Wikibooks). I was just trying to get the ball rolling on such a book by duplicating the content.--Jorfer (talk) 21:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

From looking at request for import, it would seem that only an entire article should be transferred this way rather than one section. The change occurred here and no changes to that section since the new licensing was implemented meaning the content is under GFDL only. I looked up at the new wikimedia:Terms of Use and found that GFDL only material was off-limits but creative-commons only material was within limits. Why it this? Either they are compatible or not unless there is some weird clause governing additional terms in one and not the other.--Jorfer (talk) 04:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Either? You can choose? Don't you mean both. How can you revoke a license once it has been granted like with previous GFDL only contributions?--Jorfer (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
I read the terms of use as listed above, but it seems to contradict FDL 1.3 FAQ as the FAQ says that they can only be licensed under either until August 1, 2009 (I get now that it is not revoking the GFDL license to change the license to Creative Commons Share Alike: it is simply invoking the Creative Commons Clause). Does that mean that mean that instead of being licensed under either that edits since August 1 are licensed under both?--Jorfer (talk) 22:36, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I remember voting on the issue, but I didn't understand the issue in depth. It is pretty complicated. I wish I was better notified of this. The wiki pages do a poor job of covering it with information scattered among different pages and a lack of explanations.--Jorfer (talk) 02:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/User_talk:Adrignola/2009/08"