Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 19

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

Wikibooks:Policies and guidelines/Proposed reform

I have a detailed page setting out a number of discussion drafts that, if adopted, would constitute a significant simplification of Wikibooks' policies. All constructive comments would be welcome, Jguk 18:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Lets clear up the policies that exist before embarking upon a year long reform of policies. You, and another user, have been blocking the enforcement of policies on the basis of the possibility of this reform. You want this reform and the other user wants no policies whatsoever. This reform is no reason for blocking the enforcement of specific policies, it is unrelated to the policies themselves and can be run as a separate issue. Please allow specific policies to be moved to enforced. RobinH 12:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
The sky is not falling. Most of the policies ("general voting rules" excluded) are accepted broadly as common sense and enforced whether or not the module says so. There is no need to railroad policies just to change the color of the little box at the top of each page. Kellen T 08:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Enforced policies represent the view of the community. Proposed policies represent the view of the proposer. There is a difference. Without clear policies we are operating withing a primitive parallel of a gang land or school playground where anyone who can muster up a couple of supporters can bully the community. Wikibooks is a serious venture that deserves better than this. RobinH 09:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Kellen's right. We already have policies covering the areas you are interested in - they just aren't in a formal written form at present. It may well be desirable to formalise some of the unwritten parts of our constitution (particularly as it allows new contributors to quickly find out what behaviour is generally accepted and not accepted in this community), but there's no need to hurry - we can take time to get things right. For example, at present you are actively working towards writing a "no personal attacks" policy. Let me be clear on this - if someone makes persistent personal attacks on Wikibooks and refuses to desist I and/or other administrators will have no difficulty in chucking them off the site until and unless they agree to abide by the rules. This will happen whether there is a written policy on the point or not. Yes, it might be a good idea to spell this out somewhere, but even if it is not spelt out, if necessary (and I hope it never is), that course of action would be taken, Jguk 16:17, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The objective of policies that have been approved by the community is to show both users AND administrators the boundaries. Administrators should welcome clear descriptions of what is expected on Wikibooks and enforced policies provide these descriptions. RobinH 08:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Gaming manual as a textbook

I'm throwing down the gauntlet here on this issue again. I am sick an tired of a bunch of content being removed simply because it is of a particular theme. In particular, the removal of the gaming guides was IMHO totally out of line, but in this case I would like to prove both Jimbo and the rest of the anti-gaming guide people that they are not only wrong, but flat out wrong about the removal of content simply because of the topic, not because of the content.

I'm willing to consider a number of options, but what I'd like to do is write a real honest-to-goodness textbook that would be of the quality that it could be used for a university class, but that the topic of the textbook is a video game. Specifically I'd like to do Doom if for no reason other than Jimbo has specifically marked it for deletion and claimed that it could never be made into a textbook. I'd love to prove him wrong on this point in particular.

You can easily prove me wrong. Show me a University course where the objective is to learn to play Doom, and where the students work from a textbook. If not, then what is the point?--Jimbo Wales 21:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
My former employer, Columbia College Chicago, has a new game design major. While no course on Doom per se is taught, part of the new curriculum is a course on game engines and writing and designing virtual gaming environments. It seems like it wouldn't be much of a stretch to use a textbook that is survey of say the original M&M, Doom, and WoW to describe the art and design of these virtual environments. As long as the rigor exists in the treatise, it could very well be used at the course. Of course, one could include historicity and the nature of actually WRITING a game guide as a chapter. Plus, I can't imagine Columbia College is the only higher ed that has a curriculum in this topic .02USD jtvisona 05/28/06
I believe what you are saying is that textbooks suitable for students can be written about games. I would agree with that. Indeed, going by Jimbo's amendment to What is Wikibooks [1], so would he. What we are doing, however, is to systematically remove game walkthroughs (ie books about games which clearly do not fall within the definition of "textbook"), preferably after having found a new home for them elsewhere on the web, Jguk 07:39, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

This is not intended to be a video game walkthrough (which should have been the point of the debate well before the removal of the gaming guides), but rather an in depth scholarly review of this game, and to point out the historical significance that this game has within the computer gaming industry. The historical roots of this game, including Castle Wolfenstein, Commander Keen, and other earlier ID software games, as well as other computer games would be included in this book as well. How Doom has affected the development of other first-person shoot 'em up games would also be a significant point in this book as well.

All other Wikibooks and in general Wikimedia policies should be followed when developing this textbook, which the end goal is to reach a standard that if this is deleted, that wikibooks itself should be simply shut down as a failed project.

I don't know if there are any video game textbook supporters left on Wikibooks, but if there is anybody interested in taking on this project, please let me know. I think a real textbook can be written on this topic. Others may disagree, but this is also to see if there is any room left on Wikibooks to even permit the writing of such a real textbook. My opinion is that just because of the subject matter that it shouldn't be deleted out of hand. --Rob Horning 12:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Video games are going to be an extremely disturbing phenomenon in the next decade or two as they become enmeshed with real life. When online cash can be withdrawn from ATMs as real cash we are talking about something serious occurring. Wikibooks may well be the "cutting edge" publishing medium that gets out of video games just as they start to take over the world.
I do not play these games myself but it is obvious that they are the test bench for the future virtual reality working and trading worlds. There are currently 6 million on-line gamers involved in games that have real world cash interfaces and this type of cash represents over $800,000,000 dollars of real world money (See current edition of New Scientist).
Don't get me wrong, I really hate the idea of people going to work by sticking on a VR goggle-set but sadly it looks like the future. It is probably already a reasonable business idea to set up as a shop-keeper or interior designer in an on-line game. RobinH 13:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
But not all games deal with internet cash. In fact, most of the games that deal with internet cash are strictly casino games like Texas Hold' Em or BlackJack, except online. Thats like using Porn movies to say that the movie industry is poor, and Hentai and Porn Books to say that the book industry is also unsuitable for textbook materials. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
What I was saying is that games that involve cash but which are not casino games or pure porn are a new development that is likely to take off in a big way - see Business week story. These games are a test bed for VR commerce and a VR economy. We should not ditch games just when games are about to "happen". RobinH 19:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Lol. I misread your post :-/ Agreed. --Dragontamer 19:56, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Robert, I'm still here kicking for Video Games on Wikibooks. My first question is what stance should we take on Doom? The real obvious one is to take the Doom Source code and then do an analysis from there. The primary advantage is that yes, this fits the classical definition of textbook, but it probably wouldn't save the video game bookshelf.
Another perspective I see we can do is to see Doom as an art of itself. Using Game Design textbooks like Chris Crawford on Game Design, we could use his vocabulary of what a game is, and then analyse the game akin to a book or movie. Perhaps the level design and how mazes are as they are in Doom, the pros and the cons. Etc. Etc. From this perspective, it would be like the Muggles'_Guide_to_Harry_Potter but for doom instead. --Dragontamer 19:02, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Robert, as long as it's not just a walkthrough, I'd be fine with it. I have been a big supporter of the Textbook Rule, but if the topic of a textbook is a video game, I'd be more than willing to help. Let's get cracking. --LV (Dark Mark) 14:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'd have no problem at all with a textbook on Doom along the lines that Robert suggests. Wikibooks is for textbooks. I believe we all agree that books similar to those used in existing classes in a number of learning institutions are within our scope. Additionally, I believe we all think that Wikibooks' scope is wider than that - although we do disagree on how much wider it is than that and how to define accurately what we mean by a textbook that can't be used for a current class in a learning instition.

To my mind a lot of what a textbook is is in the aim and style and the use to which a textbook can be put. It would be foolish to say that there can be a textbook on every conceivable topic, yet at the same time it is possible to write interesting and informative textbooks that do not correspond to classes in schools, universities or adult education centres. Robert's proposed book on Doom, for me, appears to meet the right criteria. I would stress though that our current book on Doom does not.

I would, however, ask Robert, for his own sake, to think whether he really wishes to pursue his idea - as I'm sure we are all aware, writing a book takes up a surprisingly large amount of time. However, if Robert will put in this effort in essence just to prove a point (and at the risk of Jimbo ordering the book off Wikibooks anyway) then I will not in any way seek to hinder him, Jguk 16:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm not following your logic, Robert. How is a "scholarly review" a game manual? The book Doom can't be turned into a textbook without rewriting all of the content, which is what you intend to do. Correct me if I'm wrong but Jimbo has never said that a textbook can't be written on this topic. In his WB:WIW revision, he said quite the opposite. I think what you have to ask yourself is whether a book would be usable in a classroom on any aspect of game design, like an annotated text would be in a literature classroom. I also don't know what to popularity of video games has to do with this. There are even colleges devoted to video game design, but not one has a "How to finish Doom" or "Doom Manual" class. --haginძaz 16:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

So make it a rewrite... even if it has to be from scratch. Monopoly had this happen and has become a much better book as a result. The opinion of Jimbo was that Doom could never be used as a textbook because of the subject matter. Yes, he did say a textbook could never be written about this topic. This was mentioned specifically as an example. My proposal here is to rewrite, perhaps even from a clean sweep of the current Doom Wikibook being thrown out, to turn this into a textbook that could be usable in a classroom. Major sections would include game play, economy (weapons and ammo), algorithms, and historical impact of the game both in terms of roots and what games have been developed from this one game.
Based on what I am percieving from the people trying to remove video games, they are trying to delete content because of subject matter alone, and not content. The discussion has become so heated that the issue of wheither any university-level courses were taught on the subject, with incredulity occuring when some actual courses were pointed out.
In addition to all of this discussion, until Jimbo came in here and really pushed for textbooks, Wikibooks was about books, not textbooks. Essentially, this was for content that would normally be considered acceptable on Wikipedia, but for its length and the need to break it up into multiple sections. Some additional flexability was granted for Wikibooks to do non-encyclopedia type works. I will admit that the first Wikibook is the Organic Chemistry, and that was a textbook. Other content is on Wikibooks however, including content added by WMF board members that is clearly not a textbook in nature.
I have been approached now by two different people who are openly trying to encourage me to fork Wikibooks with actual server space to do so. I think this is an unfortunate situation, and I would rather that forking doesn't occur. I still havn't decided if my effort is going to be used to work on those forks and abandoning this project altogether or if there is something worth saving here. I do believe that far too much content has been removed from Wikibooks, especially when much of that content was added on good faith that it belonged here.... even surviving VfDs earlier. While there was and is still cruft on Wikibooks, taking out two major bookshelves (Video Games and How-tos) is not a way to win friends and grow this project. Especially when there is no place to move it within the context of Wikimedia projects. Had this been done with Wikiversity (I guess they are next with the axe now) another fairly significant community would have been destroyed as well, with some potentially outstanding ideas lost permanently. --Rob Horning 19:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wouldn't you agree that the content you will be using to create a Doom book would work better as part of larger textbooks, such as as examples? In my opinion, yes, it would be a textbook teaching concepts taught in classrooms, but just not a very good one. I don't think it occurred to Jimbo that someone would bother teaching game design using only Doom, as better examples exist.
Has any attempt been made to ask the board or Jimbo himself whether he has the right to dicate policy? I would like to hear someone outside of Wikibooks say that this community has the right to decide upon Wikibooks' scope. If that happens, an active discussion should ensue and I'll give my opinion on the matter. --haginძaz 20:34, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Well said Robert. As for critical study of Doom; I cannot think of a more revolutionary game than Doom. In fact, the word "Doom Clone" described First Person Shooter genre for *years* after Doom was released. It would be great as a case study. --Dragontamer 03:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the others, but my input in this matter has always been from the perspective of a gamer. I originally came to Wikibooks because of the Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas guide, where a large portion of my contributions were and likely still are. And once it was suggested that they be moved I was fine with that, as to me it makes sense to move to a more focussed, gamer-friendly wiki. Indeed I've talked to many outside of the wiki environment who were surprised that a site called "Wikibooks" had videogame strategy at all!

I bear gaming topics no ill will. If someone starts "A Tempest in a Coffee Pot? Jack Thompson Vs. the Gaming World" I'll be right in there expanding it and linking to interviews and the like. But if someone starts "The Definitive Grand Theft Auto: Vice City Stories Solutions Manual" I'll take it to Vfd soon after. Serious Wikibooks can and will one day be written regarding videogames, but the current game guides simply don't fit that category. And is moving them off Wikibooks all that dissimilar from your tabula rasa propsal? GarrettTalk 04:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Again and again, this argument comes up. And again and again, people fail to come up with a good reason for why Video Games should be removed. Unless I'm missing something here, but I don't see any good reason for video game guides to go away, aside from stir up trouble in the community.
My strongest protest to this move is that it of all things, slaps long time editors in the face, and kicks them out of the wikibooks community. Whether or not this is for the "better" of wikibooks, we will have to live with the fact that we got a bunch of now former editors of wikibooks, who are very disgruntled.
As Robert said, this move has made some people to go as far as make forks of Wikibooks. Isn't this a tiny little tipoff that just maybe something is off here? 2 people asking for forks means there are a *whole* lot more than just 2 people pissed. The only reason there is to this nonsense is that "Jimbo Says". If it isn't obvious to anyone yet, Jimbo seems to be more busy at Wikipedia than here, to put it mildly. As I've said before, there have been admin requests that were denyed for having fewer than 270 edits, and having 6 month breaks. As much as I don't wanna downplay Jimbo here... I just wanna point out that "Jimbo Says" is not a good enough reason for all this. --Dragontamer 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm wasn't making any point, merely refreshing what I've said in previous debates before jumping into this one in an attempt to avoid any further confusion in an already complex debate. Bah.
I'm not one to go too much against the flow of what the Foundation says, which is why I've largely accepted what Jimbo said. In the end the Foundation owns the servers, however we collectively have supplied both funding and content, thus making users by and large feel that we have some say in how we run things. Jimbo has always encouraged us to make our own policy decisions, however he has stepped in occasionally when those decisions didn't go the way he felt the Foundation stood (e.g. Getting a Girl and other such modules).
But recently he's become more and more vocal, and less and less present to clarify his rationale. The videogame policy change is the climax; even to those supporting the move it's a stunning change of events. Is this the Foundation speaking, or is it only Jimbo? And to what extent do the Foundation board members back Jimbo's statements as being ex cathedra, so to speak? And, also, to what extent do we the community (who are arguably responsible for Wikibooks' content and in turn its success) get a say in matters?
I'm all for continuing a happy medium, but things are getting out of hand. This is why I have put my transwikiing efforts on hold. I need to know where we stand. If we're to allow game guides, sure, I can use the log to undelete what I've moved and everybody will live happily ever after. If we're not, fine, I can continue work. But I really feel it's time we heard from the board itself, and not just Jimbo. I want to see closure to this issue. I really don't care which decision is reached, as long as it's both official and final. GarrettTalk 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I put a note on Jimbo's WP page.
Also, just to be clear, I am not asking people to fork WikiBooks content to my wiki. My wiki in the public domain, and so is not a suitable place to move the content to unless you are the copyright holder. Except for the Pokédex, which as a collection of facts is not covered by the GFDL, I have just finished copying them all. All I did was to letRob Horning (who supported my admin request for simple.wikibooks before) that there are other options. The choices as I see them are to help out one (or more) of these other wiki's, or to use your energy to try and fight Jimbo with no guarantee of success and little to no progress on these books while doing so. Gerard Foley 23:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we just all petition the Wikimedia Foundation for an entirely brand new domain where video game guides and other how-to books could reside (Wikigames or Wikiguides, or some other creative name), leaving Wikibooks for just textbooks (and perhaps while we're at it move Wikiversity too?). Or keep them here and form a Wikitext for only textbooks. We already have a lot of content that could populate both, and it would all be contained under the Wikimedia umbrella. Anyone wanna take this to meta with me? --LV (Dark Mark) 01:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll help out with that. I have the same user-name at Meta, so send me a message there, and I will help petition. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 01:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


The only thing I see that is an issue, is why split a community already so small and fragmented? We aren't even at the "critical point". So much work is needed to start up a new book; editors rarely search outside their pet projects. Newcommers are fustrated as they stumble upon stubs and stubs. The newbies who do find a project they are willing to work for quickly find their contents deleted, sometimes with no explanation, or any clue to where it has gone.
Frankly speaking; I think a forking of wikibooks in any way would cause this project to crumble, unless it is a "fresh start" and everyone is actually willing to "do it right" this time (if you know what I mean).
And after the fiasco with wikiversity, I'm not... encouraged... to take anything to meta anymore. Though if enough people join the cause, I may change my mind :-/. How many months have those wikiversity people been trying?
In closing, I'd like to ask; why not change the Wikibooks policy to include video games, howtos, guides, and other instructional resources? A new domain name would be a difficult goal to aim for, and it seems that changing policy to include what already is on Wikibooks is a *much* easier idea than:
  1. Petitioning for a new Domain Name
  2. Winning that petition
  3. Writing a proposal to Wikimedia board
  4. Correcting that proposal over a period of several months
  5. Transwiki everything over
  6. Restart policy from scratch
Chaning the policy only involves telling Jimbo Wales and/or the board that we've changed our mission to what we actually do.--Dragontamer 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
We only need a new domain if we want video games guides at a WikiMedia project. Why is this so important? There are already plenty of places willing to accept this content:
If Jimbo doesn't want this content, let's take it elsewhere! Gerard Foley 02:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
But if we can, why not try and keep this under the Wikimedia umbrella? I know forming a new domain under WM can be tough, but I think if enough users still want to work on them, we should at least try to find a WM place for them. If the proposal is rejected, then go to outside sources. My opinion. --LV (Dark Mark) 03:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Hm. As interesting as the idea of a separate project is it would have some growing problems. Most importantly Wikibooks has been the videogaming recipient for several years now; no matter how loudly any policy changes are stated on Wikipedia there will still be content dumped here due to habit. And so a good portion of transwikiing work will be spent moving such stuff off Wikibooks and into "Wikiguides", and then the userbase there will in turn have to move it around within their own system or else just plain delete it. If the Foundation are going to keep videogame guides in the family why not just leave them here? And as for the likelihood of the Foundation accepting the proposal, I really can't say how videogame content on its own, even if bolstered by non-gaming howtos, can fit the Foundation's "educational mission". GarrettTalk 04:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is Jimbo was very clear about this, normally he just [2] likes to wonder], but on this issue he was black and white. Video game guides do not belong here. Period. Gerard Foley 13:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
As much as wikitruth has some valid points... I wouldn't go as far as to say I believe it 100%. Opinions on people are wide spread, and I'd rather not judge Jimbo on something other sites say about him. But anyway; please, explain why Video game guides don't belong here, and second, why we can't change policy to include them. --Dragontamer 12:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Rob, FYI, the game w:Final Fantasy X was the subject of a quite thorough post-grad Phylosophy thesis recently. You should read the Abstract and Introduction, the thesis author mentions a lot of reasons why games can be considered the Shakespeare of our times. It is a pity games are being evicted from here. Thank heavens we found a home for the Final Fantasy stuff! Renmiri 07:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Dragontamer, if you want to know why Video game guides don't belong here? Because Jimbo says so! Why can't we change policy to include them? Because Jimbo wants them gone. I have a list of books I was going to keep an eye on my user page, a quick look and you can see I was a supporter of video game books. I started some of them myself. IMO it just isn't worth fighting for them here when other wiki's will welcome them with open arms! Gerard Foley 19:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
You could also read this post I made [3] Gerard Foley 19:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Page break for editing purposes

So then we convince Jimbo/Wikimedia board to say it is better for guides to stay here. Lord Voldemort wants to create a new wiki for it. You want to create a new wiki for it. I want them to stay; or to move them to a new wiki for it. Renmiri thinks they deserve to stay. All in all; I see so much support for this stuff, not only from typical editors, but from at least 2 Wikibooks admins. If Jimbo really doesn't want them here, well then, he'll have to live with his decision of (IMO) killing off the wikibooks project. Too many contributors are leaving because of this decision (video game contributors or not), and maybe we all can reverse this decision. And the advantage is now on our side to say why things belong. Damage is already being done to the Wikibooks reputation because of this decision, and instead of me hypothesising about it, I can actually point it out. Your fork is a near perfect example. The activity levels of admins is another one; it may be too soon for me to point this out, but coincidence or not; Special:Contributions/Robert_Horning and Special:Contributions/Kernigh activity level dropped a *lot* right after his little announcement (from 10+ contributions a day to 2+ days a contribution). I'm sure they're still here, reading, waiting to see what will happen soon on wikibooks before offering their time and energy on this project again. I know other people have gone "missing", but I can't name them off the top of my head.
It is much easier to keep things here than to make a new wiki; on wikimedia or not. Though, if Jimbo says goodbye one more time, I guess we'll have no choice but to leave. But we aren't losing any "time" here on this issue, and I argue that there is no "wasted effort". Making a wiki is too large an undertaking for me to just say "Alright, I'm leaving". We got policy to make, and early policy to make as well. We'll have to come up and lay down the lines precisely, with no "gray" areas. The community will have to grow, we'll have to fight vandals, set up a hierarchy, etc. etc.
Thats all done here in Wikibooks now. The only thing to do is convince people (more or less, Jimbo) that we want this kind of content somewhere, and that Wikibooks is better off overall if we stay.
I suggest to Lord Voldemort: instead of that proposal for a new wiki; why not propose we change policy to stay here? I'm willing to support that 100%.
Crazy Idea, i know, but thats why I'm here :-p To offer crazy ideas.--Dragontamer 19:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't say, "Hey let's create a whole new wiki" if that wasn't where Jimbo/Board were leading us (and always have been, for that matter). The Wikimedia Foundation has in its bylaws, that WB is "a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books) named Wikibooks".[4] So somehow I don't think changing our Wikibooks policy is good enough. I simply see everything (Jimbo's statements, the bylaws, the educational goal, etc.) and think it's obvious that game-guides are not to be included. That's why I suggested an alternate domain. I just don't know anymore. Instead of asking, "What's so wrong about having video game guides here", ask yourself "How great would it be if there was a website dedicated to the distribution of free textbooks to every person in the world?" --LV (Dark Mark) 20:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't see where video game guides conflicts with that at all. Maybe I'm oblivious, but from what I'm seeing (that is, major users who have stopped contributing, people moving out of Wikibooks and into forks, other pissed off users who probably aren't going to come back), removal of these guides has essentially killed that goal, or at least caused a major setback to Wikibooks in general. --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If you are going to try to fight for them to stay at Wikibooks, then go ahead and good luck with it! Just don't expect me to help, I'm too busy writing these guides, and my CSS guide also is coming on nicely also IMO :)! I 100% won’t be coming back to Wikibooks either way. I have invested too much time & money into by wiki to abandon it now. I mean the $10 offer for 200 words will cost me $200 alone, which comes out of my own pocket! Plus there’s hosting costs, back-ups, getting advertising, trying to get a new host so I can fix the ugly url's etc.. No, I'm gone for good. The only thing I'll be doing is helping to move anything which is free of copyright over to my wiki (such as the 24 hours I spent copying the Pokédex). Yes, this decision will probably only help kill Wikibooks, but perhaps the damage has already been done? Gerard Foley 20:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand 100%. Good luck on your wiki project! No hard feelings from me (you deserve none at all) --Dragontamer 21:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
If wikibooks were my project, I would have set it up differently, but at the same time there is a certain amount of value in having an open-textbook resource aimed directly at students. I don't think that this will kill wikibooks, but it will slow us down a little bit. Good luck on your projects, and I know that we here at wikibooks are going to need alot of luck as well. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, Renmiri - me - is just a n00b at Wikibooks and pretty new at Wikipedia too, so my lamenting that game guides are being evicted doesn't have the benefit of all the knowledge of WikiMedia history, bylaws, etc... But precisely because I am a newbie is that I wanted to give you my perspective: Game guides are, IMHO, where the Wikibook administrators of 2015 will cut their teeth in. From what I have seen in game sites and in Wikipedia / Wikibooks, this is where 13-16 year old - or even younger - will start thinking about cooperation and content management. I'm willing to bet that the first textbook a high school kid reads voluntarily will be a game walktrough. Even for the older newbies like me and others, the game guides provide a less stresful way to get into Wikimedia editing. A Wikipedia page about heart surgery, ancient history or all the others I have browsed those past few years looked pretty intimidating. Yet a page about a game made me confortable enough to click on that scary edit tab and I fixed a couple of things. Three months later me and other n00bs had injected so much life into that particular game series of pages that 10 pages were cited as Good Article and one got confirmed as Featured Article. And our newly found boldness for editing started spreading around to other topics and to Wikibooks. In my view, it may be necessary to evict game guides for the many reasons cited above, but Wikibooks is losing an excellent opportunty for training and nurturing new book editors and book readers. Get them while they are young, and on a hobby like games and those readers and editors might be yours forever ;-) Renmiri 01:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I come exactly from your background Renmiri. My first major edits were on Maple Story, a video game. --Dragontamer 01:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
My first wiki-edits were on the Chrono-Trigger artical at wikipedia. I strongly believe that there should be a place for game manuals for precisely the reasons that have been mentioned. I even voted back in the day to keep the game manuals here. However, it seems that the focus of wikibooks has changed (or at least re-focused on it's original goals), and I don't think that there is a big reason to fight that. Wikibooks will be hurt the most by a lack of focus. If we want to put everything and anything here, we should just rename it "wikieverything". Unfortunately, the line has been drawn at game guides. But look at what we have now: dedicated editors who are going to take their game guides to a new, more appropriate venue, and a highly-focused instructional resource in wikibooks. Our situation is certainly bittersweet, but if it has to happen, we might as well see the silver lining. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 02:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks has always accepted manuals, howtos, gameguides, and so forth. We knew where the line was drawn, and we know exactly why Wikibooks isn't a "Wikieverything". Even before the Jokebook incident, we were already pushing Wikiversity to leave, deleting other non"wikibook" material, and everyone knew exactly why it didn't fit policy. The line was already drawn, and now it is redrawn again. Now, even very instructional material like Wikibooks:Votes_for_undeletion#FAQ_for_alt.internet.wireless and arguably textbooks like that *very* informative MJ book are at risk.
And with a line drawn somewhere inbetween Chess and Video Games... I see nothing but confusion ahead for wikibooks if it continues down this path. No metric, aside from "Jimbo Says" decides the line between Chess and Video Games. And I doubt there would be any defined line between them.
And without defined lines; there will be no justification for really any action at wikibooks. Policy right now is shot; the "Accredited institution" metric is probably the only one that is being used at any rate, and even then, that metric is shot. The only thing left here is for us to argue opinion vs opinion; with no solid policy to say why something could survive a VfD now.
That is what is causing the fustration right now. And with the line now drawn at such a blurry place (Chess/Go vs other games), I dunno what to say. What about Omok/Gomoku? 6 in a row? Connect 4? There is no policy to say what lies exactly inbetween the lines here.
The problem is far deeper than just Video Games on wikibooks. But I feel allowing Video Games on Wikibooks will cure nearly all of this policy debate up. Unless you have a policy that cleanly cuts Video Games away from Puzzles and Chess, or include them all (or none), Wikibooks will stagnate. --Dragontamer 02:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Game guides on Wikibooks

Given the harmless nature of such guides are you sure that they should be banned from Wikibooks? They are contained in their own section, the distinction between games such as Doom and Chess is debatable and, in the last couple of years it has become possible to actually trade inside games see Business week story. The users at Wikibooks are definitely uneasy about the ban. My userid is RobinH at Wikibooks.

Drawing the line seems very easy to me. There is a simple question: can you point to a course at an accredited institution which uses this sort of thing as a textbook? I think there are college courses on chess. I think there are not college courses on Doom. Simple. Some people may not like that Wikibookians do not want Wikibooks to be a dumping ground for whatever doesn't fit in Wikipedia. But we have a charitable mission, and we need to respect that. --Jimbo Wales 21:46, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales"

The issue I see is then Wiki Science as far as I know, isn't taught at universities. --Dragontamer 11:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Idea for policy

Biographies have been a major isue over at Wikipedia, especially biographies of current people. The idea of a biography on a wiki is usually appauling to most people. And while wikitruth may not be true on this issue, it does list some pretty poor possibilities when it comes to biographies. Essentially; if someone disagree's with their biography, they simply can't just edit it; else the vandal patrol will catch the major revision they probably made and revert it. And then it becomes pretty difficult for someone to prove that they are that person, and etc. etc.

My idea for a solution is simple. No biographies on Wikibooks. To my knowledge, there are no biographies on wikibooks right now, so we aren't cutting anything, and more importantly, anyone out. By initiating this policy now, we can catch the problem early, before it becomes a problem here on Wikibooks, as it is in Wikipedia. (indeed, all the major press problems on Wikipedia deals with Biographies). --Dragontamer 06:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As we host textbooks, not biographical books, the issue is not a great one on Wikibooks. We do, though, have some (very brief) biographies of key figures that feature in the development of the science or humanity in question. For instance, General Biology has General Biology/Gallery of Biologists, which mostly links to wikipedia, although General Biology/Gallery of Biologists/Charles Darwin is hosted on Wikibooks. I don't see any problem at all in this, as I expect the number of biographies we host to stay low. One thing we could do to head any potential problems off at the pass is to have a separate category into which to place the few biographies we have so that they can be closely monitored, Jguk 07:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Thats the issue. Closely monitored means that the person who the biography is about may have a very difficult time editing his own page, especially if he is a newbie to wikibooks (as is the issue in Wikipedia. How the heck is a newbie supposed to know any policy?). Loosely monitored == vandals on all biographies. It is a lose-lose situation I see here. Finally; a biography on a key figure in history would technically fall under textbook. Martin Luther King for example is a unit alone in some history books. I don't see how an indepth biography on say, Saddam wouldn't be a textbook at all. Useable in a (modern) history class so on, so forth. --Dragontamer 07:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't agree with that. Wikibooks doesn't have the bloat and the red-tape that wikipedia has. We don't have many people here who are prepared to revert a gigantic revision like the kind that you are talking about. General policy here is an "ask first shoot later" kind of mentality. We are more likely to post a {{cleanup}} notice or a {{warning}} note on questionable content, and wait for a reply. I think that Biographies could be considerably useful, although we would probably do well to stay away from current-event people, and stick instead to historical figures who are already dead, and whose lives are set in stone. I would probably vote to allow biographies here, given the opportunity. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I guess as long as current-event people are stayed away from, we should be good. --Dragontamer 05:47, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

abilties of "mediawiki"

hello, im from the hebrew wikibooks.

i would like to know if you know any way to show all pages under specific page.
for ex. if there are the pages:

  • abc
  • abc/1
  • abc/2

is there a way to show on the page: "abc" list that will include: "abc/1" and "abc/2"?

thanks

Click on "Special pages" on the toolbox, and then "Prefix index". Type in "abc". The English wikibooks version is here. The Hebrew wikibooks version is here, Jguk 08:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
you misunderstood me, i want to put in every book the same template that automaticly will show all the pages under the page she is included in, is there any way to do it?
There is not a way to do this, to my knowledge. Kellen T 22:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Wow! I have been looking for a page like that for ages but it didn't come in my standard 1.5 MediaWiki installation package. Is that an extention available as open source code ? I'd like to get it for my Fan Fiction Wiki Renmiri 07:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
    • There is not a way to do this so far as I know. You should write the extension maybe =) Kellen T 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
      • I did write one extension already :) [5] But in this case I was just referring to the one Jguk mentioned above: Special:Prefixindex. It is not on the MediaWiki 1.5 or 1.6 distribution, so I wonder if it is something you guys did or something I could get at Wikimedia. BTW, I have installed the Spell Checking extension on my Wiki and it works great! Wouldn't that be neat to have it here too ? Renmiri 14:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • Hrm, I thought it was a part of the core MW distribution. Have you tried the latest beta versions? We usually get things as they happen. Alternatively, you could ask about it in #mediawiki on irc.freenode.net Kellen T 15:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
        • I looked at your site, and it looks like you have the prefixindex available to you: here. Kellen T 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
          • Oh that is the site for the Spell Checking extension, not my site. But thanks for the tips, I will look into it. I'm positive it didn't came with 1.5 but I have not installed 1.6 so it may be there. Thanks !!! Renmiri 15:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Try to transclude the Specialprefix page:

{{Special:Prefixindex/{{FULLPAGENAMEE}}/}}

We use this trick in the Spanish Wikibooks, so it should work here. --ManuelGR 19:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Woah, that's pretty good. Nice hack! Kellen T 19:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Creating Text book Modules for Wikibooks with Google Notebook

Creating Text book Modules for Wikibooks with Google Notebook I've put together some short instructions for banging together module content with references on the web by using Google Noteboook... I think it could be leveraged into quite a publishing tool if used correctly.

  • install notebook
  • right click add note
  • print document
  • copy and paste into page
  • text clean up (time consuming as Garrett Points out)

benefits

  • easy to use
  • includes URL for references
  • wikipedia and Creative Commons materials available

Video of the process coming soon.

Anyone tried same/similar? You can see some rough content here: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/FHSST_Computer_Literacy/Contents/Computers_in_all_walks_of_life and here http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=User:DennisDaniels&action=submit

best --dgd 06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it's definitely a useful tool. Unfortunately for ideal results you need to format everything twice (e.g. '''bold''') in readiness for importing. GarrettTalk 11:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe a plugin specifically for Wikimedia? I know that Google is very much pro Wikipedia and etc? --213.42.2.23 11:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Fix

Might want to change this page: http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikiversity

Thanks

published books

why not put books in that dont have copyright shakespeare authors that have been dead 100 yrs are copyright free put some on!!!!!!!!!!

Wikibooks is for books being made/corrected, etc. etc.
Already finished books go on Wikisource --Dragontamer 19:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Blocked User?

One of my contributors has told me that he can no longer edit pages on wikibooks. He says none of the edit links show up. He's on the opposite coast as I am, so I can't exactly go over and see what he's doing. He had been making a lot of great contributions until this happened, and I'm trying to figure out what may have gone wrong.

Is this what it looks like when someone gets blocked? I know that sometimes he logs in with his username, and other times he contributes from 71.103.178.xx. Can anyone shed some light on this? Jim Thomas 03:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any IP addresses in the block log, although I only looked as far back as mid-april. There aren't many usernames in that list, although if you tell me your friend's user name, i can look it up for you. I've never been blocked, so unfortunately i dont know what it looks like. If there is some kind of an error though, I might be able to help. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 03:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
His username is Westsarchery. Jim Thomas 03:53, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
That username doesnt appear anywhere in the block logs either. See if your friend can send you a screenshot or something of what he is seeing when he tries to edit. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 14:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are blocked and you try to edit, then you will see the MediaWiki:Blockedtext page. This should allow your friend to see if it is an inadvertent blocking problem, or something else, Jguk 12:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like he must be having some other problem then. I'll try to work with him to see if I can get to the bottom of it. Thanks for the help. Jim Thomas 13:11, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I know that I was having a specific problem with my ISP, that my edits would never get saved, and when i clicked "Save Page", the page would never load. When I moved home, I was using Comcast instead of Verison, and now I can edit freely again. Maybe your friend is having a similar problem. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 14:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
It might be a problem with monobook.js/css. I edited mine to add something; it got messed up and eliminated all tabs at the top of a wikipedia page. It didn't fix itself even when I commented out both files, only when I moved them. Also, appending ?action=edit or &action=edit to a wiki url opens edit. PCU123456789 (talk) 00:39, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Video game guides issue

Unfortunately, I think it's time that we put the issue of videogames to rest. Wikibooks:Game manual guidelines needs to be altered (removed or rejected), and WB:WIW needs to be altered to demonstrate that game manuals do not belong here. I would be highly in favor of writing an expiry time into this policy, so that we can review it at a later date, once we know what the long-term effect of losing these manuals actually costs us. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 18:35, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not looking good foe the people who want to keep the guides. The Pokédex was just deleted today. Even though some users want to keep the guides, actions show that they are leaving. Gerard Foley 01:13, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Inevitably those who were here just to write the guides will leave, and those here to write a mixture of textbooks and video game guides will reduce their time here. Hopefully they will go to the sites where the guides are being moved to and those books will continue to grow. Meanwhile, with a true focus on textbooks, Wikibooks should be in a fine position to expand and attract in those who wish to boost up our textbooks.

Ideally I'd like to be able to go to Wikipedia and invite in, say, those who would be willing to write a complete study guide for Maths GCSE - and then expand that for all GCSE syllabuses and then similar courses in other countries. Similarly for A-level maths - and for other subjects. The cost of published copyrighted texts is enormous - Wikibooks should set itself the aim of providing free texts, thereby benefiting the cause of education greatly, Jguk 06:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Going back to Whiteknight's suggestion, I think that he is right. As a temporary measure, let's reinstitute Jimbo's addition to WB:WIW [6], which was to add under a heading of "Wikibooks is not a repository for video game manuals" the following text:
Some content about video games could be appropriate, such as a textbook for an existing course on the impact of video games in our culture. But in general, game guides are not appropriate for Wikibooks.
Jguk 06:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Can someone please explain to me what I'm missing here? I know I'm obvlivious at times... so maybe it is just something obvious ... but. How are video game guides contradicting that goal? How would video game guides slow down progress at Wikibooks at all? --Dragontamer 06:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

By removing books that are not textbooks from Wikibooks, Wikibooks will be in a position to become truly focused. Focus is important - it tells people clearly what we are about. It should enable us to attract more writers and readers in so that we can become a leading resource for free textbooks, which is, after all, Wikibooks' aim, Jguk 07:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

What we need is for the likes of you and I to get back to book writing - your Kings and Queens book is great! That said, this is a "Larry" moment for Wikibooks, do we allow the future to evolve within us or do we regulate it? The risk taken by Jimmy Wales when he deregulated Wikipedia was enormous but our risk is tiny - we just partition the dubious books onto bookshelves at the back of the library. We can maintain the focus by presenting our high school books at the front. Which reminds me, I should really be lending a hand on these so we actually have some high school books. RobinH 17:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

An electronic encyclopedia of life?

Edward O. Wilson was quoted as saying the following in The Discover Interview in the June 2006 issue of Discover:

"What we need is an electronic encyclopedia of life, with one page for each species." (To allow scientists, and others, build a world-wide resource.)

Is this a Wiki possibility? David Hockey 15:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought they had such a project at Wikispecies. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I love video game books

I am afraid that I have not been so clear in my past statements in this area and this is causing people consternation where I think there should be friendly dialogue.

I am an advocate of free culture. I love video game books. I think that people should be passionately writing books about video games in a collaborative manner. These can be walkthroughs, these can be textbooks about the sociological phenomena of games, these can be textbooks for game programming, these can be user manuals, these can be joke books, these can be fan fiction, these can be all kinds of cool and interesting things that I have not imagined, and that none of us have yet imagined, because we are at the beginning of the grand experiment of internet collaboration using free licenses.

The issue here is not about me not liking them, the issue is that the Wikimedia Foundation is a 501(c)(3) non profit organization which was approved as such by application to the US Government based on a particular charter of operations, and we have NO CHOICE but to follow that charter. If we expanded the mission of Wikibooks to include things which are outside the scope of our charter, we would lose our tax exempt status and place the entire project in peril, including Wikipedia, Wikibooks, and everything else.

There is a simple dividing line to use. Is there a course taught at an accredited institution of learning, which requires as a textbook, the sort of book in question? That's the rule. It is easy to apply, it keeps us from having to fight about whether various things are 'important enough' or 'serious enough' for Wikibooks. (A silly question, I think, because all kinds of things are important, and demeaning someones work as not being serious enough is not kind.)

I think of game walkthroughs and manuals in the same way that I think about Hamlet. Hamlet is a great book, but it is not a textbook. It belongs in Wikisource. Game walkthroughs and manuals may be great books, but they are not textbooks either. They belong at Wikia, or a generic wiki host.

We do not allow original fiction here. We do not allow things that go in wikisource. I have too much love and pride about the important mission of Wikibooks to let it become a dumping ground for things that the Wikipedians are kicking out.

The mission of Wikibooks is to provide a complete curriculum that will allow every single person on the planet, in their own language, to get the education that they need to survive and prosper in the world. This is a noble mission, it is an important mission, but it is not a mission that can be achieved without serious focus on what we are doing here and why. We are a charity. We have a mission. Let's stick to it.--Jimbo Wales 22:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point that has been brought up concerns topics that are worthy topics of instruction, but that may not be taught in a standard classroom setting. For instance, Chess is certainly not taught in many schools, except there are chess clubs that teach it. And if we allow Chess, then the slippery slope has us including all sorts of games. How do we answer this issue? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think chess should probably leave, as Jimbo said "Is there a course taught at an accredited institution of learning, which requires as a textbook, the sort of book in question?". I don't think you can take a collage course in chess, therefore it has to go. Gerard Foley 23:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
But there are people who do seriously study chess, and there are chess schools where it is professionally taught to students. Perhaps these chess schools aren't accredited (i don't know one way or the other), but it is a serious topic of study with several instructional and theoretical books being published on the topic. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Well if these classes are in an accredited institution of learning, then it can stay, if not, it leaves. Gerard Foley 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
This shouldn't be such a difficult issue. Google should give us some indication of what is and isn't being taught. For Chess, we have
  • GCol 1905 Chess and Critical Thinking at University of Minnesota [7]
  • MATH 177 Logic of Chess at University of Wisconsin Whitewater [8]
  • ED 4358 Chess I: Using Chess in Elementary Schools at University of Texas [9]
  • Fundamentals of Chess (no apparent catalog number) at University of Maryland-Baltimore County [10]
Although I still haven't demonstrated that the Chess Wikibook is useful in any of these courses, we're a lot closer than we were. This only took me a few minutes. I think this is the right way to apply the "accredited institution" metric — let's talk specifics rather than going on preconceptions about what classes are and aren't taught. --Brian Brondel 01:03, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
It looks like I was wrong; you can learn chess in collage! I guess the book is safe then :) Gerard Foley 01:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
On another note, given this information and this mandate, I think it is very important that we update WB:WIW. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 23:40, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, WB:WIW should be updated with this new information. Gerard Foley 23:45, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Details of 501(c)(3) are given at: Tax exempt status for your organization. The charter for Wikimedia is at : Bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.. Please can anyone point to where these exclude documents such as game guides, or have I missed a crucial document? A charitable educational institution is permitted to start courses as and how they think fit but it seems that Wikibooks is excluded from this - anyone know where? RobinH 09:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

This answers my questions completely. --Dragontamer 11:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Robin, the bylaws state (on page 1):

"The general purpose and objectives of the Foundation shall be the following: Wikimedia

Foundation is dedicated to the development and maintenance of online free, open content encyclopedias, collections of quotations, textbooks and other collections of documents, information, and other informational databases..."

and they go on to describe Wikibooks as:

"a collection of e-book resources aimed specifically toward students (such as textbooks and annotated public domain books)"

These seem quite clear, Jguk 11:30, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

They seem crystal clear but they do not exclude game manuals. In fact it would be appropriate for an on-line source such as Wikibooks to mount the first ever set of books that constitute a complete course in computer gaming. Computer game guides, if offered for free, do not violate either of the two documents mentioned, so the legal and constitutional arguments are red herrings.
We are left with a debate about whether we want to have game guides and whether these are appropriate to Wikibooks.
My own view is that Doom is questionable but guides that cover "Second Life" and other online games that involve real financial transactions must be valid books. However, the whole debate is strange because these game books are harmless and can be partitioned onto the computer games bookshelf. RobinH 12:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid I do think you are somewhat misunderstanding Jimbo if you conclude that a game guide like Second Life may be permissible on Wikibooks because Second Life has some features that may make playing it valuable in real-life. The question to be asked is - is this book a textbook? Jguk 07:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
The problem is "what is a textbook?". A textbook is a manual for a course of study but what is a course of study? We are trying, artificially, to limit the idea of courses of study to those courses that are already available somewhere in the world. In other words to courses that are economically viable. I think some aspects of video game play wll be economically viable in the near future - the fact that Wikibooks might already have a manual for the course will expedite course creation.
It is amusing that our roles in the debate on regulations have reversed as we examine different areas. RobinH 10:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

consolidation of bookshelves

I've been looking at the following bookshelves in the Wikibooks:Social Science department: Wikibooks:Economics bookshelf, Wikibooks:Business bookshelf, and Wikibooks:Law bookshelf. I cannot speak for the business and law bookshelves as strongly as the economics bookshelf, but I don't believe there is enough material right now to constitute an entire bookshelf. I suggest that these be consolidated into one bookshelf for the time being, maybe the Wikibooks:Social science bookshelf. I'm sure eventually there will be enough content to constitute three seperate bookshelves, but I think that won't happen for some time. On my user talk page I have listed the inactive, low content books on the economics bookshelf that I believe should be deleted, or merged. I would appreciate it if an admin would take a look at this list, and either delete these books or let me know if they are subject to speedy delete or not. Also, just out of curiosity, if anyone is currently working on a book on any of these book shelves, could you leave me a message on my user talk page? Thanks, DettoAltrimenti 23:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I will take a look at the books you mentioned, and do what I think is necessary to them. Also, the idea of bookshelf consolidation, considering the fact that we have so few books on those shelves is a good idea, I think. I am not to involved with the structure of bookshelves myself, other users and administrators are far more involved with that subject then I am, and I would hate to monkey around in a system that I know nothing about. However, if you feel that things would be better with a merged bookshelf, and if you have the time and energy to attempt the merger, by all means do what you think is best. Be bold. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 00:26, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Unicode

I am transwikiing a unicode table from pages in http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Unicode_9000-9FFF to http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Windows_Programming/Unicode/Character_reference/9000-9FFF. The pages on Wikisource are headed for deleetion, but are useful as a unicode char. code reference in the Windows Programming/Unicode/Character reference wikibook. Does anyone wish to help move this?PCU123456789 (talk) 00:42, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

User:Uncle G has a transwiki bot. He may be willing to help. Kellen T 02:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

& in links

hi, a technical question. I'm asking here because there seems to be no consensus on what is or is not permitted/working/expteced/...

There were some links that have been removed from a number of modules in the Ada Programming book, but not by the authors, as far as I can tell. The change comments are consistently empty, so I don't know for sure what the reason was, though I suspect the intent has been technical: mostly &-links have been removed.

The help pages on links and URLs I could find were not exactly unambigous about the issue: & is a valid plain URL character. You can escape it. & works just fine where we need it, see below. & becomes %26 when the link is activated.

The Ada programming book talks, naturally, about the "&" delimiter. (Each delimiter has its own module.) The & character works just fine in links, it is URL-escaped (%26) and leads to the expected module:

I can use an internal link, Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&, i.e. [[Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&]] or an Ada/template, [[Ada Programming|]], i.e. {{Ada/delimiter|&}}.

I can even omit writing a proper character entity reference and still I get Ada_Programming/Delimiters/& i.e. [[Ada_Programming/Delimiters/&]] and &, i.e. {{Ada/delimiter|&}}.

  • Is this a technical issue?
  • Is it a misunderstanding?
  • Should the URL/link help pages be improved, or should I improve my understanding?

As I am maintaining two programs for turning Ada into wikibook markup, I'd really like to know whether there is a precise specification of what exactly composes an internal wikibook link. The editting help is a bit vague and ambigous as regards the full character set, or am I missing something?

The issue is of general interest, I think, as linguists, typographers, prep school teachers, and authors of books on other programming languages might run into the same issue. (If there is one.)

regards, gb 03:07, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's no problem with the links working, I see no reason why you shouldn't be able to use them in the Ada book. The person removing them probably didn't understand that they were valid. Kellen T 19:05, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
After looking into this some more, I conclude this was instead part of the recent redirection cleanup. Follow-up question below. gb 17:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

About categories

In wikibooks we have a problem in the other wikis they don't sense: in the category page, where appears a book's subpage like xxxxx/yyyy/zzz we see all the address. Will be usefull a new function like writing [[Category:German!zzz]], will print zzz on the category page. If you agree with me I will post this purpose on bugzilla. bye The Doc 12:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Ok I've done it, bug 6111 The Doc 20:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archive_19"