User talk:Dan Polansky
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
Contents |
[edit] Welcome!
Welcome, Dan Polansky!
| Getting started with Wikibooks |
|---|
|
Come introduce yourself at the new users page. If you have any questions, you can ask there or contact me personally.--Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Pidgin
[edit] LaTeX
Can you synchronize such substantial changes to the book table of contents with the print version and navigation template? Thanks. --Derbeth talk 14:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Done. I have left out the index from the print version, as it does not seem to be useful for it, and from the navigation bar, as that one omits appendices, or most of them. CMIIW. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of Cascading Style Sheets
Done. --Derbeth talk 09:15, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
[edit] JavaScript/Contents
Yes, you're right, no pages like "XY/Contents" should exist. However, lots of books violate Manual of Style and create "cover page" on page "XY" and create table of contents on "XY/Contents"; what's worst, some even name chapters like "XY/Contents/Chapter name" to get free backward links to table of contents, which is dreadful. Book table of contents should always be placed on page named the same as the book.
This was also the case here: JavaScript was first a cover page with categories and interwiki, than someone came and removed all this, making a redirect. I restored the cover and fixed the TOC.
The problem is that English Wikibooks has no policy on cover (title) pages and currently there's a total mess. Some people put categories and interwiki here, other put there, sometimes there are some different sets of both on both pages. Noone knows where to link to from bookshelves: to table of contents or to cover?
On Polish Wikibooks there's a clear policy: all interwiki and categories should be only on cover page if it exists and all links to book should lead to the cover page, not table of contents. That's the best solution, because if there's a cover, readers should see it first when clicking on book title (otherwise the cover would not make any sense); in the same time the table of contents cannot be a subpage ("/Contents"), because this would break automatic backward links.
We lack such policy here. Unfortunately I'm not very active on Wikibooks, so I don't have time to fix it. However, if you have time, it would be good to start preparing it. --Derbeth talk 17:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry for elbowing myself into this discussion, but just a quick note. There is a bit of a mess with the page structure, but there is a clear preference by the current community for placing an overview of the contents on the book main page and the MoS strongly recommends doing it that way. We do, however, give editors some leeway to do things the way they like. Better a poorly structured book than no book at all (structure can always be fixed once they come to their senses ;-) ).
- We don't have bookshelves any more (these have been replaced by subject pages) and they are being phased out. Links should always point to the main page. If book contributors want readers to start on a cover/splash page, then so be it.
- As for the state of affairs, this derives from the fact that many books were created well before the manual of style had taken hold. Most of the language books are very similar and may have been formatted by a small number of people (many seem to be minimal courses from some Peace Corps program or something similar) and/or be the case of a meme spreading. I've been fixing a few, but it takes a while. If you plan to do work on this, make sure to check whether the books have active contributors before doing anything drastic. --Swift (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
[edit] English
I just removed your speedy delete request because the page still is part of the book structure. There are also other pages that are similarly empty of content. It would be better to deprecate these pages before deleting them. Leaving red-links would be even more confusing to future contributors. --Swift (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
- Sounds good. How do I tag a page as deprecated? I used to do it using {{Editor note}}, but is there a standard way? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
- If a page qualifies for speedy deletion, you tag it as {{delete}} as you did. But before that, it's generally a good idea to deprecate it by removing links that point to it. This shows that the page isn't used any more, helps make sure it won't just get recreated later and leaves a clearer replacement-structure for future contributors.
- You can see what links to the page you are viewing by clicking on the "What links here" link in the toolbox in the side-bar (on the left in the default skin).
- Not that this procedure needs to be overly rigid and formal. In the case of deletions, content gets the benefit of the doubt and your fellow Wikibookians may prefer keeping it if they don't know where you plan to take the book. --Swift (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- What exactly are you doing to the English book/project? I spent a long time creating an 'English' page which would serve to direct users to the specific book they were looking for as 'English' on its own was too general. Why couldn't you have just included all the other books on the English language that you'd found into the original 'English' page rather than 'subject:English language'?--ЗAНИA
talk 22:27, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- I post my reply here: Talk:English#Splitting_again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- I guess I should also post a reply here: I have split again several books on English that you have "merged" by adding the prefix "English/" to them. I did it per Wikibooks policy that Wikibooks books should not have their subject in their title as a prefix, only a book title. I was aware that I was undoing your move. After careful consideration, I decided to take that step, as I came to the conclusion that your move--adding the prefix "English/" to the book titles--was after all not a good idea. At least one user---Martin Kraus--agrees with my move, as follows from Talk:English#Splitting_again. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
- What exactly are you doing to the English book/project? I spent a long time creating an 'English' page which would serve to direct users to the specific book they were looking for as 'English' on its own was too general. Why couldn't you have just included all the other books on the English language that you'd found into the original 'English' page rather than 'subject:English language'?--ЗAНИA
-
Dan, I think this English category has to be ordered somehow, I wrote more about that in English Grammar talk page. In short, I think that there should be three grammars for different levels, called something like Comprehensive English Grammar, Advanced English Grammar and Beginners English Grammar, and these should be separate from learning modules. All other grammars should be deleted. Otherwise, people have done great work, but there is still no certainty. Tkorrovi (talk) 18:15, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, I guess you are referring to Talk:English Grammar#English grammars. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Subject pages
Hi Dan,
Subject pages such as the one you created at Shoe belong in the subject name-space (just prepend "Subject:" to the title). As for that particular case, I would recommend a slightly more subject-oriented title such as leather-works, crafts, or something similar. Note also that a book can belong to multiple subjects. The hierarchy isn't very good, but you can browse the existing ones from the Wikibooks:Card Catalog Office. Adding new subject pages to that hierarchy will increas its accessibility and make it easier to maintain. --Swift (talk) 10:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
