Book creator (disable)

Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 5

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

Fitness WB

I am currently working on a rough draft of a weight training book and I noticed that there are a very few wikibooks on fitness in general. Should I instead focus on a more general fitness WB? Would there be anybody willing to collaborate with me on this idea? I shall provide a link to what I have so far, it is mainly notes and not very beefed out yet. Any comments appreciated. --Robert Harrison 22:16, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Widening the scope is fine; even if there's no other content for a while it's still something that someone else can add later. As for other contributors the author of Folkstyle Wrestling might be interested. Anyway, hope that helps! GarrettTalk 15:32, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Wiki Wikibook

Hi, I'm fairly new to the Wikibooks community, and have constantly been having questions about how to edit wikis. a lot of my questions can be answered by the How to Edit a Wiki page, but some specific questions (mainly about how to change the way tables look) are hard to come by. I was wondering if there is a "How to edit wikis" wikibook, or if there are any plans to make one. Thanks. DettoAltrimenti 22:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi DettoAltrimenti: I don't know if there is a "How to edit wikis" (how about "How to wiki-edit"?) wikibook - at least, I haven't come by one - but I'd volunteer to contribute to one as I've had thoughts along the same lines as yourself. (For starters I'd suggest reformatting the Editing help page - which I note has a "This page needs Cleanup..." message...)  Anyone else?  David Kernow 00:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hello, the MediaWiki Handbook might just what you are looking for. It continues to help me with tables and templates. As for an actual wikibook on the subject, the MediaWiki Handbook is on a bookshelf even though it links to another Wikimedia project. I guess one would say that that it is on permanent loan to Meta. Any additional thoughts would be appreciated. --Robert Harrison 13:34, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm the editor who put the "clean-up" notice on the meta editing help page. I did that right after another well-meaning editor took out all the useful "quick reference" stuff. I and other editors put all that stuff back and then tried to streamline it. The "cleanup" tag can probably come off. But reformatting the information might still be useful. I also started an FAQ over there for all the little obscure tips and tricks that were sneaking into Help:Editing or building up in the related talk pages. You can continue to mine the help talk pages for tips and tricks that might make good material for the mediawiki handbook. Or you could create more links from the mediawiki handbook to the help pages. And links from Help:Editing to the mediawiki handbook. --SV Resolution 15:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Robert and SV. The MediaWiki Handbook might indeed be what I (and maybe DettoAltrimenti) have in mind. Although it's probably dealt with elsewhere, I'll ask this here: How would I download the current Handbook in (say) PDF form? Apologies in advance if I've missed the obvious.  David Kernow 17:45, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Hey David, I know that it is possible to convert wiki to pdf, and I've even found a page that might b what you're looking for, but I can't make heads or tails out of it (over my head). Besides the link provided I know that you can create a printable view of most pages using MediaWiki. Hint: Look in the toolbox on the left. That's all I know. Hope it helps. --Robert Harrison 00:58, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again, Robert. I checked out the PDF export page you mention and downloaded a freeware version of the Htmldoc program mentioned (htmldoc-1.8.23-winfree.exe, available from various internet locations). The scripts in the rest of the page are to include in the freely-available source code for the program, to make it more wiki-friendly. Time plus a lack of experience has prevented me from trying to compile this version of the program, but I have been able to print a few MediaWiki Handbook pages using the basic Htmldoc v1.8.23 program. I think, however, your timely reminder re the lefthand-side toolbox is where I'll be heading - thanks!  David Kernow 22:41, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Pegagogy

There is only a short wikipedia entry on this- the study of teaching. Would anyone be interested in writing a book about this- I am interested in both analyzing the current systems of teaching in seperate countries, and also theory behind teaching (I am writing a draft on pedagogy for my grad school application). first, would the history of pedagogy and current pedagogy be a different wikibook than pedagogy theory? And second, is anyone qualified and/or interested in this subject? please respond on my talk page if you're interested in collaborating with me on this. DettoAltrimenti 02:44, 2 November 2005 (UTC) Also, I just looked and found the wikibook Instructional theory, but there's no content. DettoAltrimenti 02:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks account - Separate from Wikipedia??

I have an account in Wikipedia, but I have to create a separate account in Wikibooks. This doesn't make sense to me since they're the same basic site - just different projects. Does anyone know why they haven't combined both account systems? I've also noticed theres no "+" button on wikibooks.. why... The way I see it, Wikibooks should be EXACTLY like wikipedia - except containing books rather than articles.

The accounts is a shortcoming of the MediaWiki software- every MediaWiki project has its own set of user accounts. I think they're working on it, but there are several technical (db load) and non-technical (what do you do if 2 different people have the same name, one on each site?).
I'm not sure what you mean by a plus button. Never seen one on Wikipedia, but I don't contribute there much. Likely one of the two is on a slightly newer version of MediaWiki, or has an extension the other doesn't. --Gabe Sechan 04:04, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
The "plus" button is something that depends on the skin you are using, and sometimes appears on talk pages to add a new comment section. Since this isn't a talk page, you don't get that generated automatically either on the "edit this page". As far as having to create seperate accounts, this isn't just for Wikibooks but for all other Wikimedia projects as well. Just as you have said, there is an effort to try and get the accounts coordinated with a universal login, but that may prove to be harder than it seems on the fact of it. The huge issue is mainly to create a seperate db for just user login entries and making changes to MediaWiki to take advantage of the change. Also, the existing projects are heavily integrated with the current setup and MySQL in particular (the underlying db running the servers for Wikibooks and other Wikimedia projects) doesn't take too kindly with accessing a secondary db for some queries. Not impossible, but it does make life harder. Also, each of these projects like Wikibooks has its own enforcement policies, and deciding to block an individual user on one project doesn't mean at the moment that you are blocked everywhere. --Rob Horning 16:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
If someone is evil, aren't they universally evil? --Zephram Stark 22:19, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps, but perhaps stalin could offer interesting input on methods of torture, but he'd probably not be best to consult on social integration (for example). 134.219.167.53 22:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
For more information on the attempt at making it possible to use a single login, see meta:Single login. The discussion's been going on for some time. It's a tough problem. -- Kowey 23:05, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I want to add a chapter (a module?) to the wikibook on learning vi, vi Reference. I understand how to add this to the Contents in the first module, but there is an instruction there to also change {{Learning_the_vi_editorTOC}}. Where do I find this TOC? Jonathan Webley 15:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You can find it at Template:Learning_the_vi_editorTOC. In general, a template with no namespace indicator refers to one with the namespace indicator "Template:" so that {{Learning_the_vi_editorTOC}} is {{Template:Learning_the_vi_editorTOC}}. --JMRyan 22:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
If you click "edit this page" and scroll down below the edit form, you will see the "Templates used on this page:" with links. --Kernigh 15:34, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Tomeraider3 format

Would it be possible to do tomeraider3 dumps similar to how wikipedia does it?

Please elaborate a little bit more. I don't understand the question or what feature you are refering to on Wikipedia. If you can provide a link to Wikipedia that can demonstrate what you are discussing, perhaps I can give you some more insight. --Rob Horning 01:44, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

GFDL violation

Discussion moved to Wikibooks:Mirrors and forks (new page). --Derbeth talk 18:22, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikibooks as a bulletin board for exchanging game passwords

An article that was an attempt to create a wiki bulletin board for exchanging passwords for Golden Sun between players of the the game was deleted from Wikipedia. See w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Golden Sun Password. A Wikipedia editor is now claiming that it should be transwikied to Wikibooks, because it belongs in the game guide. I am arguing, by reference to our official Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks policy, that Wikibooks is no more a free wiki host or a resource for conducting business (i.e. for storing files and data generated by players as they actually play the game) than Wikipedia is, and that the wikibook on the game has no need for this content, which is not instructional in any way. Please contribute to the discussion at w:Wikipedia:Deletion review#Golden_Sun_Password. Uncle G 19:13, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Odd Question

In the games section on here there is a stub for a guide for Magic: The Gathering which has had relitivly no change since started in the spring. I've been playing the game off and on since it came out(more or less). Anyway what i have in mind that i would like to do would involve moving that pages material into a subpage on the history of the game and making the main page a table of contents. My question would be is there any valid way to do this that would keep the history intact? Thanks in advance for all your help. --Unformed 19:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

The main page's history would still show all the old information, but i think once you move that information to subpages, those new pages won't have any history at all. Just be sure that when you move the pages, you dont make many mistakes, so you wont need to rollback anything. --Whiteknight TCE 20:28, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Will this be a good wikibook?

I want to create a how-to wikibook on converting Windows XP to look like OS X. This will have screenshots of various programs and have links to the programs (both freeware and shareware). I don't know the policy on linking to other sites, especially commercial. I don't know if WB sees it as advertising or anything like that. Does it need to be all free programs, or what? Thanks in advance. Gflores 00:45, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Also, is it ok if I post information on how to patch the uxtheme.dll for WinXP?
As far as I know there is no bar to linking to other sites. Of course you should use common sense and not link to sites that encourage anything criminal. The mere fact that another site is commercial is not a problem. As for information on how to patch a program in some jurisdictions that might fall foul of a ban on reverse engineering. Perhaps someone with a bit more legal expertise could comment, especially on the trans-national aspects of this sort of thing. --kwhitefoot 10:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Generally talking about the existance of patches, and about using a program to install one doesn't create an issue in all but the most restrictive countries, but talking about how to manually change the dll then use those changes to make a patch could be an issue. It should be noted in the text, though, that installing these kinds of patches violates the licence for Windows, and as it is technically creating a derivitive work, its copyright. --Unformed 15:52, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think you need worry about violating the license for Windows as it purports to be part of a contract. As far as I can tell in most jurisdictions you cannot be bound by contract terms that you couldn't read before agreeing to them (the US might be an exception). The copyright question surely only arises if you publish the derived work; by analogy: I can take any of the books in my private library and rearrange the pages as I see fit, delete pages and add my own. --kwhitefoot 17:47, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
It does sound like an interesting topic for a book, although I worry that the scope could be far too narrow to fill an entire book. You could make the book "How to Mod Windows", and then show all sorts of cool uxtheme.dll (and other graphical module) hacks as well: How to change the log-on picture, how to change the loading screen, etc. --Whiteknight TCE 16:10, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Wikijunior

Was the Wikijunior project ever moved to wikijunior.org or some other site? The page said it was going to be it's own project, but whatever happened to that idea? Thanks. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 18:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Easy way to go the next page/chapter?

Is there some sort of easy, standardized way of going to the next page or chapter? Like having a previous and next link or picture in the bottom (and maybe the top) of the page? Gflores 19:57, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way is to put something like this at both ends:

<< Back to ABC | ^ Up to Table of Contents ^ | On to XYZ >>

We don't have any definite premade examples of navigation so it's really just up to each book's contributors to sort something out. You should have a look around at how some books similar to your subject matter have done it. GarrettTalk 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
The wiki software has no idea how which page is the next or previous one; some editor must add the links. There are some templates at Wikibooks:Templates for "Navigation". --Kernigh 21:05, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I found them Wikibooks:Template_messages/Navigation. That will work perfectly. Gflores 02:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
The easiest way would probably be to create your own template that will handle the task. You could call it something like {{MyBookNav}} or something, and pass 2 parameters to it: the previous page, and the next page. However, when you do something like this, you can't just add a new page in the middle, you will have to go back and edit a few listings to make things flow again. I personally think the best way to go about navigation is simply to have a single, comprehensive TOC, and have every page link prominently back to that. --Whiteknight TCE 21:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Einstein's "holy geometry book"

Hello Wikibooks Staff,

I was wondering if Wikibooks might be able to make Einstein's school geometry book (that inspired him when he was 12 or so) available online (in both German and English) for all the world to enjoy. (And maybe you might just inspire some future Einsteins not yet born ;) Thanks!

E. Heis and T. J. Eschweiler, /Lehrbuch der Geometrie zum Gebrauch an hoheren Lehranstalten/. Du-Mont and Schauberg, Cologne, 1867.

And might you make it available online a la the British Library:

    http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/ttpbooks.html

UNIV OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY CUY

EU INSTITUTE OF INFO SCI, IZUM IZ$

NY NEW YORK PUB LIBR RES LIBR NYP (2nd Edition)

Title: Lehrbuch der Geometrie zum gebrauche an höheren Lehranstalten. Author(s): Heis, Eduard, 1806-1877. ; Eschweiler, Thomas Joseph, ; joint author. Publication: Köln, M. DuMont-Schauberg, Edition: 4. verb. und verm. Aufl. ... 1. theil. Year: 1867 Description: 1 v. diagrs. 21 cm. Language: German Contents: 1. theil. Planimetrie. SUBJECT(S) Descriptor: Geometry -- 1801-1900. Class Descriptors: LC: QA445 Responsibility: Von Dr. Eduard Heis ... und Thomas Joseph Eschweiler ... Document Type: Book

Ron Fox wrote: E. Heis and T. J. Eschweiler, /Lehrbuch der Geometrie zum Gebrauch an hoheren Lehranstalten/. Du-Mont and Schauberg, Cologne, 1867.

Thanks for your input!  Uncle G suggests you consult the policy document Wikibooks is not Wikisource.
Uncle G 01:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC), amended David Kernow 03:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

'Austrian' does not exist

I'd like to draw attention to the article about so-called Austrian language and would like to clear up information that simply is false.

When you read articles and books by linguists discussing the heterogeneous language German, you will find out that they don't talk about 'Austrian', but rather 'Austrian-German' (or the Austrian variation of German, which differs from German spoken in Germany or Switzerland) a bit in pronounciation and specific vocabulary). It is NOT a dialect, but rather German, spoken by Austrians with their specific Austrian accent (as in different parts of Germany and Switzerland people also speak with their specific regional accent). In school Austrians are not taught a dialect but German.

Next to the so-called Standard-German people speak dialects as well (as they also do in Germany and Switzerland). This is colloquial language and it is rather widespread, BUT it is not Austrian. Besides, there is not one Austrian dialect but many that differ from each other.

It would have been nice if you had included a link to this section of whichever book its from so the context and language of it could be looked at easily...then again personally I would have put this in the talk section of the relevent page. That said, I don't think it is intended any diffrently from the way some Americans like to call American-English American, or think of it a seperate language instead of a dialect, though personally I'm not sure where the demarcation line between dialect and derived language 'officially' is for modern languages. (BTW I'm putting a full copy of this in the relevent talk page, once I find it)--Unformed 16:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Taking from wikipedia

When we take material from wikipedia it seems we have to reference it. Can this be done in just one place per book or does it have to be done on each book module that uses material from wikipedia? Is it Ok to just add a link like this one:

Wikipedia
Parts of this page have been taken from

Wikipedia: the free encyclopedia.

Juliusross 14:00, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I like that box alot. you should make it a template. I would probably use it. --Whiteknight TCE 17:19, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
UncelG: I can not find the answer in the two links you suggest. Is there anywhere else I can ask?Juliusross 13:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd suggest you look around at how the sites on w:Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks give credit. Many of them use a footer not dissimilar to the example above. GarrettTalk 00:30, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
This is now a template called WikipediaCredit

Admins and fighting vandalism

Take a look at mess made by "Psychonaut". It took a long time to revert his page moving, they may be next attacks.

I think that we aren't properly prepared to fight vandalism. How many admins watch recent changes? Only a few. IRC channel for talk and with anti-vandal bot are empty. Every sysop should watch WB:VIP - are do sysops remeber about it?

I think we need some more admins devoted to fighting vandalism (in fact, reverting and deleting pages are main duties of the sysop function!). Admins should be easy to contact - they should watch VIP and be available at IRC. --Derbeth 15:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Ummm... I just want to say, crap. That is Willy on Wheels. Check him out on en.wiki. He's a pretty bad vandal. You should block him permanently. He's a trouble maker. Just thought I'd clue you in. --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:33, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

I've heard about him. I blocked him indefinitely, but, as I wrote before, this case can repeate at any time, so we should be ready to react instantly. When this guy was vandalising pages, an user reported this at WB:VIP and sent him message with warning. But no sysop was there, so "Psychonaut" had time to vandalise VIP and do more mess. --Derbeth 19:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that's really the main reason I asked about what standards are set for Admins... There doesn't really seem to be very many, and something like this can be fairly disruptive, if not destructive. On a side note, why are there so few Admins here? Just not really necessary because of the lesser volume? --Lord Voldemort (Dark Mark) 19:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, less people think Wikibooks are cool than do think it about Wikipedia Wink.png We have less users, less edits and - logically - less admins. I haven't seen rejected request for adminship, so I would say that we take anyone who's eager, ha ha. If they were more RFA's, they will be more sysops (and we wouldn't have to take everyone who's able to write in Wikicode). Ok, just kidding ;-) --Derbeth 19:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Instead of criticizing the response of the sysops, or even the dwindling number of active sysops, we instead should worry about how easy it for a vandal to move pages, and alter the page structure here. Moving pages can be very destructive, there is even a warning to the effect on the moving pages page. I suggest then, that perhaps moving pages should be restricted to admins only, because page moving really can affect the shape and structure of books. --Whiteknight TCE 20:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
I object. This is a wiki and should be open to any registered editor. We can trust most people with the page move button, because we can always move it back. Admin tools are a totally different matter. Some tools (image deletion, etc.) cannot be undone. We can trust good faith editors to move pages responsibly, but some may not be ready to handle adminship. --LV (Dark Mark) 20:12, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not possible - such kind of restriction would require change in software settings - and Wikimedia Foundation will not agree to it. Apart from it, this is very bad idea. We have lots of cases of pages that do not follow naming policy. You have to move them and administators can't do everything. I think the solution is to make more sysops (of cource, we should use normal procedures and do not lower requirements for future admins) and watching recent changes - with help of bots. --Derbeth 20:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Meh, it was just a thought. I didnt mind doing the cleanup work, it gave me something to focus on for a morning. More sysops i think, would be a good thing, although through small contributorship, there are few people to pick from. Maybe we should host an open call? --Whiteknight TCE 22:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
Is there anything like a list of editors by number of edits? That would be a good place to start a search for editors who have been here awhile and are willing to contribute. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:10, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
That is a good question. For a long time, i've wondered if they even maintain a count of edits per user. Try as i might, i just can't seem to figure out exactly how many I have (save for counting my entire contributions page). --Whiteknight TCE
The big problem with trying to get just a count of the number of edits per user is that it takes CPU bandwidth on the MySQL servers running the whole thing. The developers are lothsome to allow anything that increases CPU bandwidth at the moment for any purpose, even if the consequence is you writing a spidering bot that does the same thing and sucks up even more bandwidth as a result. I know, it doesn't make much sense to me either, but that is the current attitude right now on the developer side. There are many "features" that have been turned off as a result, even if they would be useful for admins or for article preparation. New ideas for presentation of content does get quite a bit of attention, especially if you can simplify the user interface and even better if you can cut down on the server storage of information. Those ideas seem to make it onto Wikimedia projects.

The only way I know at the moment to count edits is to simply look at the contribution list. Sometimes switch to the 500 edits view and then count how many pages (roughly) that I need to see the whole history of an editor. Talk about sucking server bandwidth as well, but it does work as a general rule of thumb. Vandals usually have less than 50 edits, even when they are done with their damage.

As far as dealing with vandals, I've had some sinister thoughts about the subject, like even going back to the vandal directly and... well... perhaps doing something back. At the very least try to get their ISP account dropped or do some harder fighting. I've had some limited success doing this with e-mail spam, but the best success I've had is with things like http://spamcop.net It would be nice to get something similar as an inter-wiki policing group that would monitor the ISPs that seem to have problems with vandals or to keep track of potentially who is doing the vandalism.

The problem with raising the bar through technical challenges like this is that the vandals eventually do overcome the obsticles and still get through, making a technical arms race and giving the vandals a challenge. The other approach, and usually followed by most Wikis as well, is to give a mile to the vandals, let them have their fun in the sun until they get bored as vandalism on a Wiki is hardly any challenge, and then they move on. At that point you can clean up after them. The way to really make things suck for a vandal is to automate cleanup to the point that cleaning up after vandals is a trivial exercise. Automation like a single click to "revert all changes by user:vandalx1" would IMHO be the ultimate weapon against vandals. A sysop could then simply revert everything they have done almost immediately with no effort. Only when somebody has subsequently gone in and added content to a vandalized page would there be a conflict, and those tend to be the most difficult types of reversions for me anyway. --Rob Horning 01:35, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Rob, for your thoughts. Re the very last, I suppose the single-click "revert all changes by X" could at the same time send a standard warning/apology message to any other users who'd contributed to a page without spotting X's vandalism, inviting them to review the page and restore any of their work lost. (Or would this make too much demand on the software?)  Meanwhile, in response to the cry for more admin, I volunteer myself - although (a) I don't know if I qualify; and (b) I could make no promise as to how regularly I could patrol.
Best wishes, David Kernow 03:27, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't be surprised if you end up patrolling more than you expect. I mainly wanted to be an admin so I could speedy-delete edited redirects. Without admin rights, a reorganization that requires page moves can turn into a complicated mess that must be carefully planned to avoid getting stuck... if it's even possible. I guess I was also pretty upset about how Gumba_gumba ( talk | email | contribs ) got away with posting a sick poem everywhere for 93 minutes. I wasn't planning to do anything else, but somehow I ended up patrolling the recent changes (often) and the list of requested speedy deletes (occasionally). AlbertCahalan 05:44, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest all admins should watch #wikibooks-en-vandalism IRC channel with anti-vandal bot. I also would like to see more people at our IRC channel #wikibooks - we could discuss many things easier then. --Derbeth talk 19:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archive_5"