Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 3

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

Forking of Wikipedia content

I've been following the Wikibooks:Votes_for_deletion page and there was one Wikibook that I actually fell in love with that has been deleted. The reference (before deletion) was Biography of Nikola Tesla. I did object to its deletion, and may still file a protest in Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion. I'm here in the staff lounge to address the larger issue.

I understand the basic idea of Wikibooks, and have contributed to several here. I do think that many people contributing here don't totally understand the differences between Wikibooks and Wikipedia, and often contribute "articles" rather than "book modules". Simply writing something here at Wikibooks is not a substitute for writing a Wikipedia article instead.

In the case of the above mentioned book, however, it was quite a bit more. The content of the Wikipedia article about Nikola Tesla has been growing quite a bit, and due to the content length, an effort was made to move some of that content over to Wikibooks. There was an editorial dispute in part due to the length of the article, and I don't want to go into the details here. On the positive side, when the move was made to Wikibooks, it was chopped into several chapters, with an excellent title page and even a good appendix section. In short, it was a well adapted beginning of a Wikibook, IMHO. It was also better organized and adapted into a book-like format than most Wikibooks that are considered "typical" here at this project.

I think the staunch objection to forks of Wikipedia articles is a bit overstated, and that there are legitimate reasons that content from Wikipedia articles could be used to be the kernel of a new Wikibook, where added content that would not fit a Wikipedia article due to length or other editing issues at Wikipedia. Certainly there should be no objection to using material from Wikipedia to create a new Wikibook.

The added issue of biographies here at Wikibooks is also unreasonable. I don't see any legitimate reason why a good biography shouldn't be a Wikibook, and there are numerous "educational" reasons why learning about the lives of various famous people could and should be included here.

My question to the Wikibooks community is: When should a "fork" of Wikipedia content be considered legitimate for the creation of a new Wikibook? Can Wikipedia content be used to create a stub for a new Wikibook? Rob Horning 7 July 2005 14:05 (UTC)

Basically the idea is that a Wikibooks page shouldn't just be the Wikipedia article with fifteen extra paragraphs, as it is not only immediately redundant (unless greatly expanded beyond that) but will also get quickly out-of-date as editors focus their attention on Wikipedia. It needs to be as fat and detailed as possible (without unnecessary "cruft" of course), while Wikipedia aims to be as brief and detailed as possible. You need to establish the fork as something on its own while going into depth far beyond what an encyclopedia could possibly cope with.
Also you must ensure that the scope and perspective are not different from WP's version. For example say I take an oversized edit to the Controversy section of the w:Abortion article and pad it out tenfold for an Abortion-focused Wikibook. The problem is, if I don't write about the other topics as well, even if briefly, it would make it seem as if abortion being wrong and evil was the only way of thinking! If you see what I mean.
The main problem with biographies is no doubt that they will inevitably end up being based on the dreaded Original Research. Also most biographies state the author's opinion, whereas the Wiki ideal is to present other biographers' opinions.
I'd say you can use a WP article as a stub as long as you do something with it. If it just sits here for a few months after you've lost the urge to expand it, that's not good. My suggestion, and indeed what I'm doing as we... um... "read", is to work on a new Wikibook entirely offsite until such time as it goes far beyond what the WP article currently covers or will ever cover. If I lose the urge to work on it and it remains a crappy stub, I'll just file it away somewhere and maybe work on it later. If I keep going, I'll eventually post it here.
That's the problem. If I took a section from WP and posted it here right now and then made slow progress on book-ising it, someone's bound to take one look and decide to kill it off.
Anyway, hope that answers all your questions. Gee, almost lunchtime, I hope I just made sense... :) Master Thief Garrett 7 July 2005 23:50 (UTC)
It occurs to me that you will always get duplicated content between Wikipedia and Wikibooks. I suspect most of the books on this site have corresponding articles on Wikipedia, and you may still get the forking-problem, in the sense that both will contain information not present in the other. The fundamental problem here is that by defining Wikibooks and Wikipedia to be authoritative places for information on the same range of topics, there is an inherent ambiguity as to where the text on the subject should correctly go.
Surely the more sensible approach would be to first write a Wikipedia article, then should the article expand to the size suitable for a book, the whole lot is transferred over here, and use interwiki linking from Wikipedia (i.e completely remove ALL content from Wikipedia). After a while, Wikipedia would die off, and Wikibooks would be left with a fully comprehensive bookshelf. And if you have that, why do you even need an encyclopedia?
In reality, some entries on Wikipedia would never grow large enough to warrant a whole book on the subject, in the same way that some Wiktionary entries will never warrant a Wikipedia article.
If it seems a bit harsh to remove the Wikipedia entry to make a book, then perhaps the content should be copied to Wikibooks, and then summarized in the Wikipedia article, making it very clear where the book is, and that all future content should go there, not on Wikipedia itself.
Main problem is that all the wikis are trying to achieve the same thing at the conceptual level, and could all be merged. They're all hosted from the same database servers, using the same apache servers and the same squid proxies, so why are they all separate systems? I guess it would be an administrative nightmare, but I could imagine the "one big wiki" approach to work quite well. Perhaps the set of PHP scripts isn't quite up to the challenge. I really don't know.
Aya 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
The point I was trying to make, particularly with the Nikola Tesla Wikibook I mentioned, was that it was approaching the size that editors were culling information from the Wikipedia article to try and make it smaller. The amount of content certainly was not an issue in this case, and indeed was a part of the editorial dispute at Wikipedia. Yes, there was a NPOV issue, but that was not the primary reason for deleting this Wikibook.
The only reason given for deleting this content here on Wikibooks was strictly because it was a fork of Wikipedia content. That seemed as though it was sufficient grounds to kill the entire Wikibook. I will be the first to admit that it was slightly sparse for a Wikibook, but not significantly so. For a Wikipedia entry it was more than comprehensive, and indeed a featured article because of how comprehensive it had become.
In addition, the argument that you shouldn't post content here on Wikibooks until you have the whole book written is also unjustified. Most Wikibooks start out as stubs that are substantially shorter than even the Wikipedia articles they supposedly are related to. The whole point of using a Wiki here is to collaboratively build content. Yes, if you let a Wikibook sit and languish its content will go stale, and there are numerous examples of that here as well. Based on this standard, more than a 1/3rd of all the Wikibooks should be deleted right now, including some that I occasionally contribute to.
As far as keeping a Wikibook up to date with content on Wikipedia, I think that over time (and enough eyeballs) that will happen. This is mainly an issue for how much will Wikibooks as a project mature over time and how many people will be participating here.
Again, in this situation, there was hardly any time between when it was posted on Wikibooks and when it was deleted. This certainly was not a Wikibook that languish for months on end waiting for somebody else to add content to it. Indeed, this whole episode is befitting the life story of Nikola Tesla as somebody who just doesn't get any respect and is considered a fringe lunatic.
Wikibooks is not Wikipedia. It is a totally separante project with a different community of users. That some cross-pollination between Wikipedia and Wikibooks does occur, it is not necessarily completely identical even on the user level. There is no reason at all to delete Wikipedia content simply because a Wikibook has been created, nor am I advocating that approach. I'm simply suggesting that it would be reasonable and prudent to permit in some cases a legitimate forking of Wikipedia content to become a more comprehensive Wikibook on a subject. I am also strongly suggesting that a bias against biographies is unjustified in general, and that as a textbook it has a legitimate use in education. It can be written in a NPOV fashion, as befits a Wikimedia project, or at least have biases that any historical subject would have.
There is also a strange viewpoint that Wikipedia "owns" Wikibooks. While I admit the user community at Wikipedia is larger and the editorial policies at Wikipedia more firmly established, there is no reason why Wikibooks always has to follow their lead. The goals and aims of Wikibooks is quite a bit different, and even the medium in a sense is different. Wikibooks is a lot more laid-back, where decisions take weeks or months to totally mull over. Even the staff talk here is not culled nearly as often as it is for Wikipedia Watercooler discussions. The #1 problem I see with people used to the rules at Wikipedia that come to Wikibooks is that they tend to write Wikibook modules like they would a Wikipedia article.
Finally, when deleting content the rule on the Wikibooks:Deletion policy page should be followed: "5. When in doubt, don't delete." I don't think this policy was followed too closely in this case, and there are many other pages that should have been deleted instead. There is enough outright vandalism and problems from new users creating unusable stubs to clean up that killing a valid Wikibook like this biography of Nikola Tesla was, IMHO, unjustified.
Rob Horning 8 July 2005 10:52 (UTC)
It's getting late so I'll maybe respond to all that tomorrow. Basically I think you should request the undeletion of this Wikibook, referring to your explanations here, and hopefully get some notice for your interpretation of forking. You must remember that Wikibooks is very small compared to WP, there are only a few sysops "ruling the roost", so there's likely less likelihood of one spotting and/or correcting another's decision. Master Thief Garrett 8 July 2005 11:46 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying, my previous reply was actually a justification for why I think you're right. I don't think anyone's just gonna start a book about Tesla on here, but a Wikipedia article is a good starting point for a book. If people want to cull parts of the article on Wikipedia, then I think it's perfectly justified to fork it to Wikibooks to avoid losing content. I guess it depends if they want to cull substantial parts of it, or just summarize the existing content without losing information. Either way, it seems as if a policy to delete forks of Wikipedia articles placed on Wikibooks will mean that no subject which has an article on Wikipedia could ever have a book on Wikibooks. This is just daft. I think the solution here is to get the book undeleted, and make it VERY clear in the Wikipedia article that the article is considered complete, and all subsequent info should go to the book. Let me know if you file an undelete request. I will support it. Aya 8 July 2005 14:33 (UTC)
I'm with you, Aya. As long as there is a clear connection between a wikibook module and the related wikipedia articles/projects -- for instance, with a little sidebar or footnote from the module to suitable articles and vice versa -- the 'forking' condition should not be a problem. The original issue with forking, as I understand it, is that a wikibook should not be created as a way to have an 'alternate version' of a wikipedia article. Sj 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Finally. Someone understands what I'm talking about. To those who didn't "get it", I might suggest reading some texts on the philosophy of language and related meaning. - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Many users here do not understand that the main objective of Wikibooks is to provide instructional material. It doesn't matter whether you have a single page or a book that encompasses 1000 modules - the point is that if it does not intend to teach the reader, then it doesn't belong in Wikibooks. End of story. A lot of Wikipedians do not understand it, nor do Wiktionarians (we have had forks of their content before) and guys on Meta. Also consider that, as of the time I write this, we only have 25 sysops and 2 bureaucrats for just under 9000 users (of which say 1000 is active on en, let's say). The numbers game clearly shows that action takes a long time to accomplish. Also, for Rob, perhaps you should talk to User:Gentgeen, who deleted the modules (Wikibookians never say article as an article is not instructional material...) and see his insights as to why he believed there was a consensus. As for biographies, the VFD consensus seems to indicate biographies are alone not considered to be instructional material, although they can be part of one (I have a textbook on abstract algebra where short paragraph-long bios are sidebars). KelvSYC 04:59, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh I see. So a guide to cheap Japanese toys like Pokemon is more educational that a biography of a famous scientist (ideal for those studying Physics)? On which planet is this the case? - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
There are actually only 1500 users who have ever made over 10 edits, across all languages. Only 450 made more than 5 edits in June; of those, 200 were editing the English wikibooks. Considering this, 21 admins doesn't seem out of proportion; that's 1 admin for ever 10 people actively editing this month. Sj 06:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
The comparable stats for Wikipedia : 57,000 users with over 10 edits, 19,000 with over 5 edits in May; 9000 of those editing the English Wikipedia. 464 active administrators. That's twice as many editors per administrator. Sj

Point taken on the user ratios. Still, you cited 464 active admins in Wikipedia. How many admins are being active admins in Wikibooks (rather, how many are considered to be active)? 10 admins? 5? Just me? Or do you consider all 25 active? KelvSYC 06:31, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I don't consider any of them particularly active, at least in the sense of their administrative duties. The speedy deletions are not being speedily deleted, the VfD contains information beyond its scope, and requests for page protections are going un-noticed. There's some talk on Meta at the moment about a new deletion system which would mostly remove the need for admins anyway. The concept of admins is flawed, since wiki is too ephemeral for these systems to work. See also User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks. Back to the original point, this request has been added to Wikibooks:Votes for undeletion. I would suggest that is the proper place to discuss the book in question. As for this discussion: as long as the policy is as vague and self-contradictory as it currently stands, this debate will go on forever. - Aya 12:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm missing something. I think I'm thinking of the reverse of Wikipedia forking in that I have a concern that there are cases where much effort could be saved by "citing" and linking to Wikipedia articles. Is there a problem with doing so as I see a number of cases here where texts could be improved and expanded quickly and easily by linking to a Wikipedia article.

If this is a topic that is being or has been discussed elsewhere, please let me know. Thanks. erraunt 20:38, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the Wikipedia is a great source to start chapter- and section-stubs. But primarily a book's module and an encyclopedia article serve two different purposes. A book's purpose is to teach one specific thing very well. That means extra background information is covered in previous chapters, and only certain details are given. An encyclopedia article's purpose is to teach many topics. That means the article has a high degree of linkage and little or no emphasis for "what is already known" verus "what isn't already known." I think the two complement each other well. You can browse many subjects on the Wikipedia to determine a specific subject you'd like to know in depth (so you read the book), or you can read a wikibook and then learn about all of the related subjects in the wikipedia.
In that light, I think it's more appropriate for books to include "further reading" sections that include Wikipedia links. I don't think it's generally useful to include links as a primary means to writing a book. Instead, what is said at the link should be said in the book itself! A lot of the information can be removed (i.e., that which is not important) and it resolves the questions "if I follow this link, do I need to follow what it links to too?" and "do I need to follow this link, or can I understand the book without it?" by making them moot. It also allows people to print out the books and have them be completely independent. --MShonle 05:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your thoughts on this. Yes, I've been getting that impression: better to move things into a book to make it complete rather than link.

So I'll do that with the things I've been planning to contribute too (if I can ever find the administrator to double check my plans).

As an asside, I'm of two minds, and my thinking is based on pragmatism. There are some subjects, like history, or the book I started on Blacksmithing where moving articles into a Wikibook makes a lot of sense as the information is fairly static and there is good reason for readers to make hard copies on occasion. However, with other topics I could see where using links extensively would make more sense, where the material was subject to frequent revision. Some of that could be taken care of with a "for further information" section. As an example, if I were working on a more technical book, where several of the components might have revision cycles measured in weeks or months, my inclination would be to build modules around a link or links to the pertinent information and in the module give the context and concepts necessary to interpret the more volatile information found at the link.

I'll admit one of the reasons why linking is attractive is the 32kb limit. There are times it seems like one is back in the '80s writing a book on Wordstar and running into the 64kb maximum file size. You have to link anyway, so the inclination is to link to something already there. FWIW. erraunt 18:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Eventually books can and should be broken up into chapters, and even subchapters, if the content gets too long. But using transclusion you can make an uberpage where if you visit it you can see all of the modules as a single page (this is great for printing or for saving as HTML to be imported into OpenOffice). Editing the uberpage would just show what is effectively a list of links to the modules, but instead of being a link the content at the link is "transcluded" in place. An example can be found here. Click on the top "edit this page" tab to see how it was done.
As for technical books, I think the primary reason someone would read it is to learn the subject. In those cases, it's much more important to teach the basics and then fundamentals first before discussing the latest fad. The goal should be that after the material is understood, the reader could then go and read the documentation for, say, the latest library changes and understand how to use it. But providing high-quality links is hard too: the content at links can change, and you need to be aware if some concept is no longer discussed, or a more difficult concept is discussed where background would be neccessary. Personally I think a heavily-linked organization is great for some kinds of information, but it is very poor for learning, which instead of heavy-linking more requires a very linear explaination. (Some textbooks are only somewhat linear, in that they include chapters that aren't required, or allow some chapters to be read in any order, but even then the prereqs are spelled out.) Perhaps if there was an equivalent of footnotes it would be better to include links there, because then it's clearer the link is only tangental (and if it wasn't tangental, then it should be part of the book itself, or part of another book that's required reading first). --MShonle 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

A proposal to unite the C++ books?

I posted this on the forking policy discussion page but got no replies, so I'll post here. If this has been suggested already then pardon me for proposing it again.

My idea is to have the two books to share a front page asking the user whether or not he/she wants to have a C++ textbook broken down into parts or learn from one single page (or however you want to phrase it, it's all up to you). Two links could then be posted on the page, one to a subsection that has the contents of the textbook now known as "C Plus Plus" and one to a subsection has the contents of the book now known as "C -/- -/-" (making the current textbooks subsections to a single book is key here). This way, development can continue into two separate directions, the book can be found using one search term, the end user has more choice, and most of all, you can heal the fork.

I look forward to hearing your opinions on this. --64.231.220.14 00:42, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Page naming aside, that solution is basically what we've got already. I would rather see a true merge done. Until someone can give me a single and undisputable convincing reason why you can't have them as one book and make the "all on one page" view using transclusions, I'm afraid I will still stand by my belief that they ought to be completely merged sooner than later, even forcibly if it must come to that. GarrettTalk 01:17, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
There doesn't need to be a separate page to ask the reader if they want a single page or a set of buckets. Simply do what the Computer Science:Data Structures book does and provide the list of chapters, but include a link to an all chapters view too. Take a look at the source to see how the transclusions are done. Why was this forked in the first place? MShonle 03:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
From what I've been able to gather (it's discussed in like ten places) the one author wanted to write a single page uber tome and the other wanted shorter descriptions on individual pages. Or something like that. They were just unable to reach an agreement on the organisation of the book so he suddenly forked it off so he could do things his way. GarrettTalk 11:07, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
But isnt the idea of chapter-sized modules the de facto wikibooks standard? I thought the idea of a single-topic "uber-page" was more of a wikipedia concept, and less of a wikibooks concept. Uber-pages take long to load, and are more difficult to navigate. Also, i can't think of a single reason why we would need 2 books on C++. I vote that we begin a process of forced-merge on these articals, working to create a more "wikibooks friendly" chapter format.--Whiteknight 13:55, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

ACT

Do we have an ACT WikiBook study guide? If so, where is it? If not, would it be a good idea to create a new one? --Think Fast 02:53, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

I must ask, what is ACT? There are a half-dozen things with that acronym. :-) MShonle 03:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. Sj 23:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm talking about the college entrance exam. Sorry for the confusion. --Think Fast 12:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Also, would anyone be interested in helping me start it? --Think Fast 00:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I started it on August 30 and have written five articles since then. If you can, please sign up to do something [1]. --Think Fast 13:58, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Uploading image sources

I would like to upload image source files in OpenOffice.org .odg format so contributors would not have to create an new figure but they could update the existing one. I know I could use SVG, and I will, but at the moment OOo draw is easier to use. Could someone propose extending the list of allowed files to OpenDocument files? --IzI 12:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

None of the regulars of this site have the ability to make such a change. Try http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ - Aya T E C 15:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
I have found the bug report http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2089 and commented it. I would like those who think this feature is important to vote for the bug to be solved. Thank you. --IzI 15:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Babel

I think that we should use the improved language templates from Wikipedia:Babel. Currently at Wikibooks three levels are used (from 1-basic to 3-fluent), but including a specific tag for native speakers is a good idea. Also, I've just created the babel templates (see Wikipedia:Babel):

If somebody speaks more than four languages feel free to add additional templates. --surueña 15:58, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to have a separate page for babel, where we can discuss it, and where we can list the templates that are usable with it. Wikipedia has alot of little babel templates for different languages, but also for different computer languages, web browsers, etc... The babel format could be used to express a very large amount of information about a user, and we should probably have a centralized resource for babel. --Whiteknight 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Game manual @ Wikibooks?

I'm currently working on a game manual for the computer simulation Live for Speed. I've set up my own LFS Manual Wiki but I'm thinking about publishing the whole manual at Wikibooks to open it to a wider audience. So my question is, whether a game manual is suited for Wikibooks or not? --Florian Jesse

In the past, such manuals have been accepted on Wikibooks, but I get the impression that this may change shortly. Try http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/ - Aya T E C 15:52, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Out of curiosity.... who is complaining about game books on Wikibooks? While they are not textbooks in a normal sense, shy of creating a whole new Wikimedia project I don't see any other place to put them either. There is a half-started attempt to create a Wikimedia project for game books, but I don't see it going anywhere at the moment, particularly with the flack that seems to be coming about Wikiversity. See meta:Proposals for new projects#WikiGameGuides for the few details about the idea. --Rob Horning 00:03, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi Rob. I'm not complaining how game books perse, but I think wikicities would be a better location for them. Here's why: (1) the books are very popular and generate a lot of hits, hosting them on WC will generate more revenue for them, which indirectly helps WB. (2) while they are how-tos on computer software, they aren't exactly a guide on how to use Open Office, so the "textbook" interpretation of it is really stretching it. (3) It would probably give WC a good boost in the arm, by increasing the number of attractive and interesting things on it. So, we don't need a whole new wikimedia project for it, WC is fine (which technically isn't part of wikimedia as a understand it, though the software and some of the people are the same). MShonle 00:43, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm personally very conflicted on the idea of having game manuals on wikibooks. On one hand, a game manual would definately benefit from the "book environment" of wikibooks, as opposed to the "anything goes" attitude at WC. Having items about popular culture here would also increase WB readership and participation. However, Game manuals are certainly not textbooks. They are only instructive to the players of that particular game, and will not teach greater lessons, in the way that other "classic instructional" wikibooks will. --Whiteknight 15:02, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

A slightly different approach to archiving pages

This page needs to be archived again. I would like to propose a slightly different way to do this. Since the page history already contains archives, it should be unnecessary to create a new page for each archive of a discussion page. --SV Resolution 14:22, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I tried this out on a WikiJunior Solar System Talk Page. Here's the procedure:

  1. Turn the current version of the page into an "archived" page.
    1. Put a message at the top of the current page -- this is an archive page; please do not edit.
    2. Save as a minor edit. Summary: Designated as archive page
    3. Go to history, click date of most recent version. Copy the complete URL. Call this THIS_URL&oldid=12345
  2. Create the "new" version of the page
    1. Edit the current page
    2. Remove the "this is an archive page" notice
    3. Create or update "list of archived pages" ex: * [THIS_URL&oldid=12345 2005-09-01] --~~~~
    4. Create or update list of "see also" links
    5. Remove the "stale" discussions
    6. Create or update FAQ and other related pages and move information there.
    7. Save. Summary: Archived. Moved stuff to xx and yy and zz.

Pros

Does not create a new page just for storing a "static" old page.

Cons

If someone did accidentally edit one of the "archive pages", they would cause a reversion to the archived page. Someone else would probably catch on, though, and decide to add the newbie's text to the NEWEST version of the discussion

Christianity -- book or wikicity?

So far, this wikibook looks like a website containing a categorized collecion of useful links. There is no outline or introduction to explain how the finished work will serve as a textbook. Would wikicities be a more congenial home for it? --SV Resolution 15:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be something of an edit war on that page at the moment between Athrash and an anonymous user. Athrash has moved the anonymous user's contributions to the page Christianity/Overview. - Aya T E C 16:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
Neither version looks like a textbook, or like it has plans to grow into a textbook. --SV Resolution 16:47, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I would strongly beg to differ that this has no plans to be a textbook. IMHO this Wikibook is an outstanding example of an annotated text (the Bible in this case) which I would actually use in both theological studies classes that I teach (currently to a group of 6-year-olds, but that is another story), as well as a good source material for doing a comparison study between differing versions of the bible. The problem is that trying to get something going like this is an incredibly difficult task, which can only get screwed up by somebody not understanding the format of the Wikibook. I am also impressed that Atrash has tried to not push things away and get them deleted, but rather provided a more appropriate forum for such discussions and comments with the Overview section.

This has also been the subject of a Vote for Deletion already in the past, which the concensus was to keep.

In terms of "new" Overview section, I think it would be hard to keep a NPOV approach, but I'm also willing to try and see what contributors would want to do first. All of the topics listed in the Overview section would make a find addition to a general book about Christianity, especially to fellow Christians. Certainly a discussion about faith should not be prohibited from a place like Wikibooks, and the faith-based articles on Wikipedia seem to work out in the end...although they do sometimes get rather contentious. --Rob Horning 23:56, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Major overhaul of Wikibooks policy (again)

Recently there has been a lot of discussion of what does and doesn't constitute a Wikibook. Due to the confusing nature of the current definitions, a policy-tightening vote is being proposed.

Please visit Wikibooks:Policy/Vote and contribute and express your opinion.

Please take note that anything that passes a vote will mean sweeping changes for many popular Wikibooks, but there will be a good warning given both before voting begins and before any move is made.

Thank you. GarrettTalk 03:30, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Yo, Garrett, you still included Christianity: The Book as non-book on Wikibooks:Policy/Vote even with some positive statements above and with the recent problem of which version was up front. The recent anonymous editor on Christianity who erased the translation/paraphrase/annotation to post the external link [2] evidently just lost that website, so those links may go in a few days. The anon does not seem to want to discuss sharing resources, so be it. Do you want the scholarly approach or not? One of the Google ads for keyword God/Religion on Wikicities cannot coexist with a page of the Bible (POV) Yes, Christianity is contentious, it has been that way for 2000 years, yet what is the alternative for the so-called moral majority (POV). You have said that Jimbo Wales is not “God,” but in his spirit, I quote, “keep editing wide open for everyone, but restrict the ability to post external links to people who are trusted by that community. Make it really easy for trusted users to extend the zone of trust, because you want to encourage participation.” - Athrash | {Talk) 06:37, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
Books on Christianity are certainly appropriate for this project, as Rob has said. But all such books will need to take a scholarly approach. For example, study guides et cetera for bible studies courses are ok. But a website to link Christians together or to serve missionary purposes no longer qualifies as a book and belongs elsewhere on the web. (And it's not like the only two choices in the world are Wikibooks or Wikicities; people are free to set up their own web servers and run mediawiki on it.) If there's been a change between the book/nonbook status of Christianity I'm sure that Garrett will remove it as an example.

(I've posted a whole list of non-books and other tangents on the talk page. I've even added a section of really cool books that will indeed be a loss for wikibooks, but a gain for wikicities. But it seems necessary if we are to be consitent about the policy we are stiving for. This section of my comment has nothing to do with the Christianity work, which, to repeat, is appropriate for Wikibooks provided it's scoped appropriately as a textbook, and not as a single web-resource for anything and everything Christian.) MShonle 06:59, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes I see. I missed all but the beginning of the above issue. But it's certainly looking like a cohesive book after all so I've removed it from the examples. GarrettTalk 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that there ought to be opposing oppinions and quotes on the voting page as well, to remove bias from it. Especially since a few of them are based off only the experience of the quoted person (for example- my local library actually has a large selection of video game help guides). Something just seems wrong to me for a voting page to be biased to one side of the issue. The topics should be either worded neutrally, or all have counterarguments. --Gabe Sechan 19:47, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
Voting hasn't begun yet primarily because the options haven't been determined. For the real discussion go to the talk page. The options currently listed was just a first draft attempt: it's a very iterative process, and we won't figure out how to get it right until we get it wrong a couple of times first. I think the library quote is from something I once said. However, given the discussion since then I think that idea is dead in the water: It would include unsavory books and exclude some good books. Before voting begins it's likely all of the options will change. Or, it's possible we'll, though reaching consensus, only be deciding to approve or disapprove a single, spelled out policy. Please do raise your concerns about the books you want either to remain on Wikibooks or to be removed from Wikibooks. For example, there was concern about "no fiction" wording that worried some people that their language instruction guides couldn't use characters saying example French sentences. One possible wording, which I would like to put up for vote, would clearly allow for such "example fiction." MShonle 20:05, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Rendering problems 2nd time

The HSME book seems to be having problems. It's centre justified. To see the problem for yourselves go to Primes . What is the problem? Can someone tell me if there's a plan to fix it? This is bloody annoying! Xiaodai 09:46, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

It appears that using MathML whenever possible is the problem Xiaodai 09:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
I see no problems when using Always PNG and PNG if Simple, so I'd say that is the problem. Hm. Well it's either the browser or MediaWiki not implementing MathML correctly; either way it will take time to fix. GarrettTalk 12:42, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Merging of Forks Action Taken

This is a message to all Admins and Bureaus here. As some of you know I have begun enforcing the Wikibooks:Forking policy on the Programming:C plus plus and Programming:C -/- -/- books. I have reviewed the policy and the history of the conflict and I have determined to take action.

User User:Panic2k4 has requested that another Admin review this case. I hope several of you can take some time out of your other duties to assist us.

There is a certain danger in taking action for a policy that has not been enforced for a long time. For one, it is not fair to the contributors and those whose works are affected the most. Moving forward we must be consistent and faithful to our policies. Sending mixed signals by selectively enforcing only some policies harms the project. Thus, for this transition we must be extra dilligent in being as open as possible (as we always must be).

It was not an easy decision to give the merge ultimatum. However, I believe as a member of this community my duty is to assist, as I can, in growing the project and getting, keeping, and respecting contributors. I myself am an expert in C++ and anecdotally I can tell you I was at a loss as to which book I could contribute to. Particularly given that Programming:C_plus_plus, the book with the more professional name, had a large and confusely-worded message on the front that would lead one to believe the Programming:C_plus_plus page could not be edited at all until "the merge dispute" was over (even though the issue was with the talk page not being ready for edits). The resulting state so far has been one where there is a rather insular project that potential contributors are scared off from touching or fixing up, and where existing contributors leave in frustration. To develop collaborative works it is essential to reach consensus and be flexible. Allowing people to fork off works over trivial formatting issues is counter to the spirit of collaboration.

As a side note, when reviewing this case I have also noticed the use of certain templates placed on other books, both of which were created by Panic2k4. One template was determined to tell users a policy that belongs to MeatBall, and not WikiBooks. The other template was a banner for other books that I felt were redundant with our bookshelves and distracted from the important "front-cover" page where a book has a chance to really sell and describe itself. (The "Foreword" template was similarly intrusive on front pages.) I have removed almost all uses of these templates in the interest of not scaring off contributors and in allowing books to keep their own front-cover characteristics. (In the history of the pages you will see I am not the only user who has taken issue with their use.) This secondary, non-merge action on my part should also be reviewed. If I had made any mistakes in this lengthy template-removal process I would appreciate if anyone could bring it to my attention. --MShonle 03:47, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Aye - you are right to enforce the policy

  1. Krischik 06:27, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
  2. Kellen T 00:27, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
  3. Dysprosia 07:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC) Absolutely. Enforce the policy as soon as feasible, the shorter we have such a mess the better.
  4. Gentgeen 08:15, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Nay - you should have waited

Background informations

Sadly the dicussing has dragged across several places:

If you know more then please add to the list.

Question about link to a commercial site

Hello, I just added a link on the Neapolitan/sites resources page to a bookstore in Naples, Italy that carries the largest selection of Neapolitan related materials that I know of. Is this kosher? Neapolitan language materials can be quite difficult to come by.E. abu Filumena 08:30, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

As long as it doesn't look like you're encouraging use of and/or advertising for that site, sales-related links should be OK. :) GarrettTalk 13:16, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Beta game

I was wondering if I could create a guide for the Mac only MMORPG Oberin, it IS in beta and I know that you can't create Wikipedia articles about beta games. Just posting this to make sure it's ok.

-Drizzt

A more suitable place for such a guide might be http://gameinfo.wikicities.com/. While we currently do have some game guides on wikibooks there's a chance they will all be transwikied to Wikicities in the not too distant future. --MShonle 18:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
I hope that new Wikibook authors don't get discouraged from statements like the one above. While game guides may be transwikied somewhere else, that discussion, much less any formal project-wide vote on the topic, has yet to take place. Like anything else in this forum, take anything you read with a grain of salt and don't take any person's word for it that something is official policy unless it is in the policy pages. Even then, the policy can be changed and updated. There are over 10,000 registered users on Wikibooks, and even more than 30 admins. If you have a vote with less than 10 votes for approval on a topic, you really havn't had "concensus" of the community. Anything less is just a call for opinions to confirm an attitude of your own. --Rob Horning 09:57, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The Descent of Man

I started working on a book that was already listed as a title . It was actually mistitled the Descendant of Man but I assumed it was supposed to be Darwin's book. I have summarized 7 chapters of the Descent of Man, but I don't know if I should continue. It's not on a bookshelf but can be found by clicking on "by category" going to the bottom of the page and clicking on science and then biology. Please tell me what I should do. I don't know how to put it on a bookshelf so someone would have to do that if you thought it should be there. M.Parshall11 September 2005

When you say you started working on it, do you mean it was a "redlink" (like your signoff name is now) or was there already content there? I can't find anything other than what you've written. I don't think there's any problem with what you've written.
I've added it to Wikibooks:Science bookshelf#Life Sciences. If Life Sciences isn't quite right feel free to move it under the more accurate heading.
I notice you added a link in the category, but the category system actually works the other way around. You put the category's name in brackets on the book's first page; for example putting [[Category:Biology]] there will make it automatically show up in Category:Biology.
I also notice you've moved this from Charles Darwin - The Descent of Man to The Descent of Man. You should use the move tab at the top of each page in future, changing links as necessary. Using the move command will keep the editing history of that page, whereas a copy-n-paste won't. But don't worry, it can be easily fixed.
Anyway, if you have any other queries or problems don't hesitate to post them. :) GarrettTalk 02:32, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Using my own contributions elsewhere

I was wondering about an author's use of his own Wikibooks contributions. Can I publish (some of) my own contributions under a non-free, non-open license? The idea would be this. Someone who gets my contributed content from Wikibooks would be free to use it in the usual open license manner. But someone who gets content from the non-free publication would face the usual restrictions for published non-open books. Where the content is identical, the distinction becomes moot since they can say they got it from Wikibooks and there would be no way to show otherwise—and who cares anyway. Where the non-open content is a slightly modified version of the Wikibooks version, then only the Wikibooks version (or a version derived from it by someone else) could be used. Basically, I might want to publish a non-open license book that includes some (possibly updated) material contributed to Wikibooks but includes significant other material as well—and I might want to do that without having the whole work forced to be open-licensed. I am unclear whether the GFDL or Creative Commons license allows this. It would not allow me to do this with someone else's open license contributions. But would it allow me to do this with my own? The issue is, at least as far as I am concerned only relevant to content spanning several modules, not to bits and pieces.--JMRyan 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Nope. You relinquish such rights when you release your work under the GFDL. According to the GFDL, ALL derivative works must be under a similar free license. And so unfortunately you'd need to go through the rigamarole of putting the entire text of the GFDL somewhere in the book.
In fact, to publish it otherwise would be illegal. Yes, that's right; technically, we could sue you if you did this. Crazy huh? :) GarrettTalk 01:38, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
This is totally wrong. He has merely licensed the work. He has not transferred copyright. After licensing as GFDL, he can then license the work under any other license as well. He just can't revoke the GFDL or attempt to relicense something he doesn't own copyright to. He certainly doesn't need to worry about complying with a license which he himself has granted; his rights are far greater. You could only sue him if he used your contributions. Note that trivial stuff, like near-robotic spelling fixes, would not count because they do not contain artistic expression. (As always, this is not to be considered legal advice.) AlbertCahalan 04:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
What came first the egg or the chicken ? that is the problem he must be able to prove that a more restrictive license was used before the GFDL (see the text below), GFDL is no exclusive but after you implement it future work falls under it--Panic 05:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
No, he doesn't. He owns the copyright on what he wrote. That means he can relicense it at any time he so chooses. However, anyone who got a copy of the content through a previous license does not get their copy revoked. In other words, I can write an article here then release another version (or the same version) anywhere else I want under any license I want. Only the version found on this site would be GFDLed. Check out similar situation in software with dual licensed products. Which one you use first does not matter whatsoever.
Sorry for my bad wording, were I say restrictive (= any prev. license, be it more or less restrictive) future (= derivative) the rest of your comment does agree with my statement--Panic 01:39, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
The others are also right when they point out this only goes for his contributions. Non-trivial changes to his contributions would be copyrighted by the authors, and publishing those under a different license would be copyright infringement. --Gabe Sechan 16:36, September 12, 2005 (UTC)
Albert is correct. The user allowed a specific copy of his work to be placed under the GFDL, for use in wikibooks. He still has rights to the original version of this work and any works he personally derives from his original work. IIRC, once there are contributions to his original work on wikibooks, he may not copy those changes as well without abiding by the GFDL (since those modifications are subject to it and they are not his work). Kellen T 08:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Oh, I guess I misinterpreted what he was proposing. I do wonder about what Panic's saying though; if that's true I'm basically screwed as far as my none-too-dissimilar GameFAQs publishing problem goes. Hm. :( GarrettTalk 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps the last two paragraphs of http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-violation.html are relevant. They would appear to support Albert and Kellen. Or perhaps I can be sued but only by myself? Of course, (as Gabe and Kellen pointed out), any ability to reuse my own stuff can apply only to my own original contributions and not to modifications contributed by others. --JMRyan 20:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Hi JMRyan: I have one question, if you'd rather keep a closed license on your own work, why even release a little bit of it as GFDL in the first place? For example, you could release the "first edition" of some work as GFDL, and then develop a "closed second edition" based on that, but the "GFDL second edition" would have changes you could only use in a strict GFDL sense (and, for example, could not be part of the "closed second edition"). It seems the advantages of opening it won't ever be reaped and it might be in your best interest to keep it all closed. MShonle 22:24, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, I saw part of a book that need work and so I started working. It turns out that almost all of my contribution consists of adding of new modules. Then it occurred to me that I might someday what to publish a text covering mostly the same ground. It probably won't really happen, but the thought did occur to me. It would not be a 'Best of My Wiki Contributions' published as a closed book. I would more or less restart more or less from scratch, but there would be enough overlap in organization and style that there might be copywrite issues if I am not allowed to reuse my open stuff in a closed book. Some ideas I think I might have for what might go into a closed book cut too close to original research and non-neutral POV to be appropriate for a Wikibook—indeed that would be a primary purpose of the closed version. --JMRyan 23:19, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
That makes sense. I must say that contributing to an open book is giving away a lot of capital, and really the only comfort is that other people will need to keep your work just as open if they intend to improve upon it. For your particular case you could take your GFDL contribution and add all of the non-NPOV and original research material you like. While those aren't allowed on Wikibooks, the GFDL allows for it. Thus you can leverage other's contributions for your own book. So, in your particular case you don't need to go closed. You can stay in GFDL the whole time. Another reason I thought someone might do this would be to put a first edition on WB, wait until it generates a good reputation and use, and then charge for an improved but closed second edition (that would not have any other contributions in it). In such a case, you're stuck doing all of the work, can't benefit from the community, and are really only using WB as word of mouth space. The only hitch in such a business plan is that the communities second edition might be stiff competition with your own second edition. MShonle 23:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Note: I'm no lawyer but the rights you are referring to on derivative works may depend on what version of the GFDL was used on the prior work.--Panic 23:45, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You should take a look at http://people.debian.org/~srivasta/Position_Statement.html Draft Debian Position Statement about the GNU Free Documentation License(GFDL) and most useful on this topic, check the Authorship section at http://www.usemod.com/cgi-bin/mb.pl?FreeDocumentationLicense FreeDocumentationLicense --Panic 02:35, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sitenotice

can an admin please sort this out the fundraiseing drive is over for now.


Wikibooks' language courses of use?

I am interested in contributing to Wikibooks, but would like to know if the site's language courses, or any other courses, have been of use, or even a considerable catalyst for further study of a subject. Thanking you, 82.249.136.174 18:34, 12 September 2005 (UTC).

Printable version of pages vs GFDL

When any one selects this option available in every wikipage the only reference to the location/license is...

Retrieved from <wikibooks page>

This page was last modified 02:24, 13 September 2005. Content is available under GNU Free Documentation License.

Since the previsible use of the function is the intended printing of a stand alone (on independet page as it doesn't force or shows the full work) to hard copy, any reference to a direct link to the GFDL is missing or a slow mail way of obtaining one, and no reference to the authors or any "Acknowledgements" (section) or reference to stand alone works that the new derevative uses.

from point 6 of the GFDL as it can be reached from the footnote in any page that links to http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html

"You may extract a single document from such a collection, and distribute it individually under this License, provided you insert a copy of this License into the extracted document, and follow this License in all other respects regarding verbatim copying of that document."

Can this be a problem?--Panic 01:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

A user printing out a version for their own use does not need to print out the license. Only when someone is actually distributing the document (i.e., beyond their own use) would they need to include a copy of the license. If someone is printing and binding these books for sale (as a form of distributing) or forking on their own site (another form of distribution) they'll need to include the license. The license should be someplace where someone should reasonably be able to get a hold of it. Including the license itself everywhere would be equivalent to the GNU "cat" command outputting the GPL each time it is run. MShonle 03:11, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
There are some problems with your view:
1) You are making assumptions...
2) The License doesn't state that difference so it has no regard for the intended use of a copy, has to deal with ANY copy. (does it state your "limited" use ?)
3) Again, and for what I do (not much, sorry) fallow in this page most people that should know the limits and impositions of the GFDL seem to have divergent opinions or personal interpretations (writers/administrators), that can lead to real pains if ever chalenged.
4) Probably, including a limited list of do's and don'ts (that could be made into a stated policy since the license in itself can't be changed) and a link to the snail mail (GNU, were a copy can be obtained should be added to every work and also made into a policy, this is not a proposal only an hipotesys) would be a good idea, this would help writers know theyer rights and limitations even if they don't want to "trace" the license for every "bug" and is common knolege that it has some... and even more if aplied to electronic works (sutch as the present framework), I as a simple user do have problems fallowing every policy and debates, and I don't think of me as being IT chalanged, and at least for now not every person has/needs a law degree, so the wording should be made accessible to every one, and the age factor of the contributors doesn't help also.--Panic 05:32, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
THe licenese requires you to give a copy of the license upon *distribution* of the text. Printing a copy for personal use is not distribution- you aren't giving it to anyone. This is the same reason you can make a change to a GPLed program for personal use and not distirbute the change- the clause is a limitation on distribution, not on use.
There isn't really any ambiguity here at all, just very carefully worded legalese by some very smart people. Just remember, distribution is not use. You can use a GFDL text in any way you want- read it, make copies of it, draw scribbles over it, light it on fire, even alter invariant sections. When you give copies of it away, only then does the GFDL apply. The GFDL is a grant of distribbution rights, not a EULA.--Gabe Sechan 16:18, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I think that you interpretation is correct (but only addresses part of the hipotetical problem), another point of view is that wikimedia is indeed a destribution veicule and the printed version is "edited" on site, and so the resulting copy is first provided on site, it's probaly equal to a user having the hole work with all the needed references to the rights and providing edited copies to a (let say) small number of other people without the license, so were is the limit of an the "use" and remember that there is't another evident way of getting a printer ready copy, or in most works a complete copy with all the needed section, references.--Panic 20:09, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your argument, so forgive me if I'm getting it wrong. Yes, wikimedia is a distribution vehicle. It also offers the license and everything else needed to by the license. However, it isn't necessary for all of it to be on the same webpage, merely for it all to be available to you at no extra charge. On printable pages, the site doesn't need to force you to print out the license as well- it gave you a link to the license already, your printing out a copy is a use of the copy you already downloaded (under fair use laws which allow time and space shifting of media, see Universal v. Sony, the Betamax case), not a new distribution. You are free to print that out too if you want. If you are printing out copies to distribute to other people, you need to include the license (although for small distribution eg you giving a copy to a friend or two, nobody coares.) --Gabe Sechan 21:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
Careful... w:Sony_Corp._v._Universal_City_Studios doesn't mean what you said it means. It means that people can make devices that have substantially non-infringing uses with regard to copyright. It didn't speak at all to "fair use". It could be argued that a copyright holder could restrict you from printing something that you had downloaded, and you would have no "fair use" safe harbor. The Betamax Case is not a license to time-shift. Only to make devices that aren't strictly for piracy. (However, the recent w:MGM_v._Grokster case may unsettle that, making the Betamax case more or less irrelevant.) --Randal L. Schwartz 22:10, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
You should probably have to read it all to understed the several problems I pointed out and the development on the several comments, I'll try to resume all without comments, but see ref. to point 6 of the license on the first post (It's getting long)...
1) Printed copy should have more than a reference to the licence, like a location in slow mail to obtain a full copy, and probably not a link to the original page but to the root of the work (or acumulate them), and/or a reference to the "personal use" since "sections" of the work "may" not be split.
2) A complete version of every work, "print ready" with the full license should be available in every work (trasnclusions) to a "monolithic" page is a solution.
3) Web use or electronic use as in Wikimedia doesn't seem to have a problem since the links are on every page.
4) A common and voted on interpretation of the license should be created without the "wierd" legal mumbo-jumbo, to make it accessible to every reader, this should be centralized and aggregate every conclusion about the use of GFDL in Wikibooks.
5) A policy that resquires a link to that explanation (with the url) should be used on for intance the introduction or foreword or any author(s) section of a book, so to desmistify and clear any personal interpretations of future writers and protect derivative works (edits that add some content are derivative works, there are also at present some mirror services not all run by wikimedia that host copies of the works).--Panic 23:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add that I did include the GFDL in the last copy of material I printed from Wikibooks material. You are correct that every "complete" version must include this text (which is quite lengthy... about 6 pages altogether even at a reduced print size). That makes printing out a single page from here something that is very awkward. BTW, if you "save this page" with Mozilla or Firefox, it downloads a copy of the GFDL with the web page as a part of the image inclusions. I can't comment about other browsers, but I would suspect similar actions, based on the html script for these pages. This is far from a simple web link, and no new policy needs to be done.

As far as requiring people to use the GFDL, the notice is about as clear as it can be without having the full text of the GFDL in its entirety on each and every web page. If that is the case that we need to do that, I suggest that we hold a vote to get rid of the GFDL for Wikibooks and perhaps restart the whole project. I'm not ready to do that, nor do I think that was the intention of the Free Software Foundation.

For printed works, it is more a "buyer beware" in terms of people grabbing content from Wikibooks and thinking it is free public domain stuff that they can use however they want. If you try to make a derivitive work of this content, you need to understand the copyright nature of this stuff, and the fact that many people (including myself) claim copyright on everything that we do here. In fact, the Wikimedia Foundation is specifically excempting themselves from copyrighting just about anything on any of its projects in order to avoid legal hassles, but you are legally liable for anything that you put down in any of these projects. If you copy the material from these sites, you need to get permission from each and every author before it can be published. By the nature of what we do here, that permission is automaticly granted via the GFDL, under the terms of that license, by common concent and by "contract" that you sign each time you press the "Save Page" button for adding text.

IMHO no new policies need to be written, but you are certainly welcome to do so, and submit them to the community as a proposed policy. After it has been voted on it may become an "enforced policy", of which there are relatively few here on Wikibooks at the moment. The text of the GFDL provides more than adequate legal language regarding official policies for how links to this site are concerned, but if you think differently, write the proposed policy and see how other people would like to modify it or support it. There are reasons for the legal "mumbo-jumbo" of all licenses, and a "simplification" of the license language can often over do it. Mainly the GFDL says "You can use this stuff on the site however you want, you just have to allow others to freely use it too afterward." As a simplification, this misses many key points, and that is why the full legal junk has to be there, together with legal commentary on the GPL and GFDL from many sources that would fill books. Perhaps we need to start one of those books here about the GFDL? --Rob Horning 00:47, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikiversity Vote

Voting has started for a new Wikimedia sister project proposal called Wikiversity. This is a request for anybody that is interested to cast a vote either in support or opposition to this new project proposal. The results of this vote will determine if this project will be started on its own seperate group of wikis as a Wikimedia sister project, together with approval from the Wikimedia Foundation Board. Discussion about this proposal should take place on the Wikiversity discussion page.

P.S. I've added a notice about this vote on the front page of Wikibooks mainly due to the very close ties between Wikiversity and Wikibooks. Because of this unusual situation I'm trying to advertise from the larger Wikibooks community in general as well for this vote. This vote is to decide the ultimate fate of Wikiversity and to get a general community view of what should be going on with this project. --Rob Horning 00:16, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Moving Wikisource:Source code to Wikibooks

Hi,

We are probably going to delete Wikisource:Source code. So I propose that some of these pages to be move here in Wikibooks. Please advise which pages would you like to get in Wikibooks. I propose to discuss this on Wikibooks talk:Computer science bookshelf. Thanks, Yann 18:51, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

It looks like there is some useful content there, perhaps some of which could be used in the Computer Science:Advanced Data Structures and Algorithms book. Overall, though, we're a book project and don't want to just have pages and pages of code. If there's plenty of exposition in addition to the code, that would be great. (As a good guide, for each non-trivial function it would be reasonable to expect three to five paragraphs explaining what exactly it's doing. Sometimes a whole subsection of a chapter is used.)
Why is this being removed from Wikisource? Perhaps you should make a Wikicity to hold the content for now, until there are contributors ready to turn it into a real book. --MShonle 19:44, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I've used any salvable content (related) to the C plus plus book, and credited the original work.--Panic 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

We at Ada Programming have registered a SourceForge Poject to hold our source codes. That way we don't need to litter the text modules with pages and pages of code. We only quote as much as is needed to explain the problem at hand and the reader can download the rest. Taking into account that Ada is not a main stream language the download statistic shows that the offer is apreaciated by the reader.

--Krischik T 06:17, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

About Ada Programming sources...

The idea is nice but I see some possible problems, since SourceForge is outside the Wikibooks how does one edit the sources, does it force a registration? using the CVS? and what about the code licenses are they all GFDL? do the authors get credited?, and that is only a solution for big sources, reference code should always be "on" the book, with references to were to get more complete/complex examples...--Panic 02:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you put your finger on all the soure points:

  • Sourceforge allow write access only to registered project members.
  • You can choose the licence - but its a software licence (we use GPL).
  • Authors can be seen only from the cvs log.
  • True, we only use SourceForge for "working demos" only and not for code sniplets.

But the advantage of providing fully compiling and fully tested examples to our readers outweight the disadvantage for us. But that might not be true for Programming:C++. --Krischik T 07:00, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Pages namespace clarification needed

I think this discussion belongs into the main wikibooks discussions, until some common policy, ideally for all wikibooks, is reached. Just the fact that everyone of us three has a different opinion what is meant "unspokenly" means that it'll finally have to be spoken. --Max 20:32, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As proposed by Max I've moved this discussion to here...

  1. pages that relate only to Wikibooks/policies/structural debates of a book, should always use that work Talk: namespace if not contributing content to the book "topic", this should be a policy if none exists.
  2. Contributions to a Talk: page related to a given page/book should have if none exist a policy of excluding it author contributions to that talk from the author list of the book (as specified in the GFDL), the rights of any contribution to that page will always be protected by the license at the bottom of the page, as a stand alone "work", that will include any archive or sub page from the main discussion area.

The original discussion can be reached here--Panic 02:32, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia projects are free form, there are no hard and fast rules that claim any page under a given name must be part of the book. This free form nature gives great freedom to contributors. For example, the whole vote for deletion process on wikipedia is just people editing a file, there's no formal voting buttons or things like that. Life changes too much to encode things in the software like that. But even if there were a policy like that, the need for a style-guide would be enough evidence that the policy should change. But this is all moot, considering that (1) style guides are entirely appropriate, (2) it does not matter in any sense if they are or are not part of the book, and (3) many other books do this already. MShonle 19:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

How to print a entire document

there is a tutorial "Blender 3D: Noob to Pro" As I and most find it easier to read a hardcopy while I work through a tutorial, I would like to print the document. Although under toolbox there is a printable version link, only one page is displayed. I would like to print the entire document. Someone else requested this in the discussion page, but no reply.

how can I print the entire document. Please help.

One way would be to create a whole-book-on-one-page version using transclusion, and use that to print. See Programming:C_plus_plus:All_Chapters for an example --Max 18:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

How can I include part of a page?

In Rueda_de_Casino there is a table, and I want the table to be populated using the pages about the individual commands, e.g., Rueda_de_Casino/Abajo, but I can't work out how to make the template for the commands: Template:Rueda_Command cause this to happen.

Any <includeonly> or <noinclude> that I use in the template is (obviously) evaluated there and then - I can't see how to make it apply to the individual command pages.

I appreciate any help.

I've also written a new template:Rueda Command TR (table row), so each individual command page does have some duplication, but at least it's not a huge amount. I'd love to remove that though.

Here's the relevant (and repeating) source:

 <includeonly>
 {{Rueda_Command_TR|title=Abajo|english=Down|summary=Walk backwards|related=[[Rueda de Casino/Una Abajo|una abajo]]}}
 </includeonly> 
 <noinclude>
 
 {{Rueda_Command|title=Abajo|pronunciation=ah-bAH-ho, ah-bAH-yo or ah-bAH-co|english=Down|summary=Walk backwards|related=[[Rueda de Casino/Una Abajo|una abajo]]}} 
 </noinclude>

I've since resolved this with a little strange syntax:

 {{Rueda_Command<includeonly>_TR</includeonly>|title=Abajo|english=Down|pronunciation=Ah-bAh-ho|summary=Walk backwards}}

This way the template Rueda_Command is used on the real page, and Rueda_Command_TR on the summary page. It's a bit ugly, and I'm not confident that other people will do it right, so I'm still hoping for a better solution. -- Ricky Clarkson, 24th September 2005.

Naming convention for categories?

Hi there. Is there a naming convention for categories? I've been using quite a few categories in the Movie Making Manual and I'd like to check that they are legal. Here's a link to the root category. And here's a link to our "formatting guide" on categories. I find that categories are an excellent way to help users to navigate the Movie Making Manual because each page can be in several different categories. For example, a page on "writing for low budget movies" can be in both the "writing movies" category and in the "low budget filmmaking" category. Please tell me I'm using categories in a legal way! I'd hate to have to re-do all the categories. Dan AKA Jack 13:20 22 Feb 2005 (GMT)

(Copied from Talk:Movie_making_manual#module_naming): I don't think there are any conventions for categories. There's not really a lot of categorization going on here right now, so I don't think it's been seen as a real issue. The Cookbook has a lot of categories, but we have somewhat inconsistent names for them (fixing that is on my list of TODO's). I am sort of inclined to have a prefix on all the categories related to a particular book, e.g. "Category:Cookbook:Vegan recipes" or "Category:Movie making:Cinematography" because at some point I can see there being difficult overlaps when we have enough books. Who gets to own Category:Tools? or does that category just get polluted with modules from different books? Seems like the "top level" categories (ones w/o a prefix) should be for categorizing books as a whole, then scoped categories (w/ prefix) should be used w/in books.... but that's just me musing about it. Kellen T 17:56, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
The proposed Naming policy does contain a convention on category naming. ManuelGR 19:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
OK. Would these naming conventions be acceptable?...
Also... currently, our headers are named like "MMM Header"... do we have to rename these to "Movie Making Manual:Header"? I have setup a redirect from MMM to Movie Making Manual.
Finally, should I wait until the Naming policy becomes concrete before making the necessary changes to the Movie Making Manual? It seems like some things are still likely to change (like regulations on capitilisation and abreviations for headers etc).
Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 13:45 23 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Yes, there is a naming convention for categories, as outlined in WB:NP. Each book book has [[Category:book]] reserved for their own internal organization purposes, with all other categories reserved for inter-book organization. Currently, book aliasing is on a case-by-case basis, and plans are that any proposal for aliases must be put through WB:CCO or some other organizational page (ie. so we can get community consensus). KelvSYC 17:09, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Sorry, where exactly on the WB:CCO page do I enter my proposal that the Movie Making Manual be allowed the MMM alias? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 10:20 24 Feb 2005 (GMT)

Please delete moved material (admins).

Hello. The Mishnah texts have been moved to English Wikisource.

Admins - the current Mishnah page has links to exact lists of all related pages. All of these have been copied and all of them can be deleted.

If its OK, the best thing would be to leave the current Mishnah page as a redirect to Wikisource.Dovi 08:37, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Interwiki redirects are bad. The user clicks what looks like an internal link, yet ends up on another project. They're also hard to find later. Gentgeen 08:44, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Not that important. Main thing is that the pages be deleted.Dovi 10:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Note that the canonical way to get pages deleted is to add the {{delete|reason}} tag to the top of them. See Wikibooks:Deletion policy#Speedy deletions for details. - Aya T E C 18:40, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Technical articles on video and film cameras - WP or WB???

Hello. I am one of the contributers to the Movie Making Manual. I would like to start a section of the book to cover technical details of various video and film cameras. These pages will contain information such as: how to operate the camera, the advantages and disadvantages of the camera, the technical specs of the camera etc. Should these pages be put in the Movie Making Manual wikibook or in WikiPedia? I note that a page on the Panasonic HVX200 was recently deleted from WP.

We already have a table listing the tech specs of several cameras. (Is this table legitimate WB content? It's certainly useful and is certainly the sort of thing that text books include.) My proposal is that the camera names would be wikilinks to more detailed pages about each individual camera. Should these pages be in WB or WP? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:20 26 Sept 2005 GMT

Since uber-detailed descriptions of cameras (and comparisons) would not be considered encyclopedic from some WP viewpoints, I'd say that qualifies for inclusion here. Kellen T 18:51, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate to talk about cameras to the extent necessary to inform the reader of what they need to know and what the important differences and trade offs between technologies are. But any extra information that is just there for the sake of being extra information probably shouldn't be included. Also, it shouldn't become an Amazon-like ratings of equipment: because that then presents a non-NPOV issue. It perhaps might be sufficient to just provide the exact name/model of the camera so that readers can find it elsewhere on the web. --MShonle 20:12, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Great, thanks a lot for your replies... I agree with all you've said. This brings me on to another, more technical question... Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:14 27 Sept 2005 GMT
So, some of our cameras have no entries at all in WikiPedia. Should I start stub-articles on WikiPedia which contain a link to our WikiBook page (like this)? Or should I do a #REDIRECT? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 22:13 27 Sept 2005 GMT
Stubs on WP sound appropriate to me. Kellen T 22:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I agree: stubs are the way forwards (although, of course, fully written encyclopeadic articles would be even better!). Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 11:18 28 Sept 2005 GMT

How to duplicate information between two pages

Is there any easy way to duplicate information between two pages? In particular, I have written a table which compares several cameras. I am planning to also give each camera its own page. I would like to duplicate the specs from the table to the camera-specific pages.

For example, the table lists a camera called the Genesis. I would like both the table and the camera-specific page to include specs like "resolution" and "view finder". What I'd really like is one page where I can declare some variables, like:

genesis.resolution = 1920x1080
genesis.viewfiner  = electronic

And then I'd like to be able to call these variables from both the table and from the Genesis page. Does anyone know how I could do this, please? Thanks, Dan AKA Jack 12:25 27 Sept 2005 GMT

Hmm... it looks like Ricky Clarkson has a solution. Is this
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archive_3"