Book creator (disable)

Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 7

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search
Nuvola apps important yellow.svg

This is an archive for historical purposes. When moving threads here, add them to the bottom of the list (or start Archive 8).


Contents

[edit] Unlinked Images - Candidate for speedy deletion?

Hi fellas. Have strolled thru the policies and have one question: Are Images that is not used (not linked) a candidate for Speedy deletion? Oyvind 09:21, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

AFAIK there's no strict policy. You have to be careful when deleting images, because they cannot be restored. I delete only images older than a year. --Derbeth talk 09:23, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
If it isn't a copyvio, see if there is a module that would be improved with the image in it. If so, add it. If not, you could always nominate it for deletion. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:54, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps they should be trans-wikied to Wikimedia Commons instead? We don't need them cloging up the database locally, and it allows us to deal with issues like fair-use that Commons doesn't want to work with. That would be the only reason IMHO images should be uploaded locally anyway. --Rob Horning 20:47, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It's not good idea. Most of unused images don't have license (we introduced copyright tags just a month ago) and they are Wikibooks-specific (diagrams, book covers, etc.) or have very poor quality (small size miniatures, duplicates). --Derbeth talk 20:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
The key point here is unlinked images. Not something that is directly connected to a current Wikibook. As for copyright tags, the presumption is that the images have to be compatable with the GFDL in some manner. I was not aware that the copyright tags were recently introduced for Wikibooks, but that shouldn't matter too much anyway, as the disclaimer to strongly recommend the images be put on Commons is several months old now. Commons has had copyright tags almost from the beginning of that project, and is yet another point to strongly suggest that the images be kept mainly on that project, where there is a much better job of policing the images there. Commons may be willing to give a little more lattitude to images that predate the establishment of Wikimedia Commons as a project if it came from another Wikimedia project like Wikibooks and otherwise seems to be a legitimate attempt to have free-source images. Project specific images and charts that are specific to a deleted module don't need to be kept. Of course I could be spouting off patent nonsense on this issue as well. --Rob Horning 02:33, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GnuFU

See GnuFU, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GnuFU, and Wikipedia:Deletion review.

Wikipedia originally gave the Gnutella For Users document to Wikisource. Wikisource is in the process of deleting it (because it comprises original work by contributors to the project and so doesn't fall within the remit of Wikisource). In reviewing its deletion, Wikipedians have decided to give it to Wikibooks instead. Please contribute to the Wikipedia deletion review discussion. Uncle G 01:48, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

If it is a software manual, Wikibooks is very appropriate. The only problem is if Jimbo's textbook-only policy becomes fully enforced, we may have to delete it instead as well. I guess Wikicities is going to get a lot larger real soon. --Rob Horning 14:07, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
A manual for use of productive software can be considered a "textbook or manual", as per enforced policy. Strategy guides for games, i think, are the only software manuals that need to be worried. --Whiteknight TCE 15:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
It is a slightly larger issue than that. The whole issue with the computer game guides is something that does need a strong community forum to discuss. So far I havn't seen that either although I suspect it has been debated on IRC a few times. We do need to debate the whole issue about the role and purpose of Wikibooks, and perhaps bring it to the wider Wikimedia community as well. So far I have resisted adding the discussion about this whole thing to Foundation-l until we have been able to form some opinions on this whole subject within our community here on Wikibooks. We are not existing within a vacuum either, as this not only affects en.wikibooks, but this formal policy change also affect the other language Wikibooks as well, particularly coming from Jimbo as it has. Changing the wording of the enforced policy makes a huge difference in this case, especially when one significant sentence had its meaning changed to the exact opposite of what was there before. --Rob Horning 16:24, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, it is a bit worrisome that at this point in the project, we are suddenly unclear about the mission of the site. Textbooks are a given, but i think it's also of significant benefit to host manuals as well. I say this especially because both textbooks and instructional manuals can both be used to teach a topic. Also, there is a significant different between manuals, that we might need to take a look at. Consider the difference between a manual on "Basic Photoshop commands", as opposed to a guide on "How to create interesting web graphics using photoshop." In general, i think it's in our best interests to accumulate useful, teachable information, regardless of the specific form that information takes (manuals, books, textbooks, etc...). This is not to say that wikibooks should be a catch-all, but things that don't quite fit on the 'pedia, and are "good enough" should probably be able to find a home here. This is an important discussion, that I think we might need to open up soon. --Whiteknight TCE 18:29, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I have contacted Jimmy at his WP page to inquire about what direction Wikibooks should be moving in. Hopefully we will have an answer soon. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
I created Wikibooks:Game manual guidelines and Wikibooks talk:Game manual guidelines to discuss whether to allow game manuals/guides/strategies. --Kernigh 00:12, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

See RuneScape cheats and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RuneScape cheats. Wikipedia now wants to give us a book on cheats for RuneScape, too. Please contribute to the Wikipedia deletion discussion. Uncle G 04:52, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Undeleted Naturism book

I have undeleted the naturism book. There was never any consensus to delete this, and the notion that this is a candidate for speedy deletion is disputed. Guanaco 22:12, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

I put my reasons for deletion on the VfD page, so I won't add more here. If you want to change Jimbo's opinion on this matter, be my guest. The page when I deleted it had a speedy delete tag and no opposition to its removal when I killed it first. --Rob Horning 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

I have used information on this website for a university assignment. I need to reference it appropriately and i do not know what i am suppose to write as the author and basically all the other information needed for referencing. Could someone please help me?

See Wikibooks:Copyrights#Use in hardcopy. If this information is not clear, let us know. Can you tell us which books you find useful? --Derbeth talk 22:22, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Categorizing books by educational attainment, level, difficulty, target audience, etc.

I was browsing the Algebra book when I stumbled on a discussion about the appropriate level of understanding required of the audience and the category that the books belonged to. While reading the, short, discussion it occured to me that some of the terms used were meaningless to me because they referred to a particular educational system (US I think). For textbooks of fundamental mathematics and similar topics it is very important that the exposition be appropriate to the target audience but how can we do that if we do not have any consensus regarding the description of that audience? Here is the comment that I added to the discussion.

When describing the level of the audience it would help if everyone explained their terms a little more. We all of us tend to think first of our own educational experience and terminology but very often this can be either incomprehensible or, worse, misleading to others. I think I understand what is meant by primary here but I really don't know what junior college means. I think that most of this book was covered in my junior high school years (1966..1969) but whether my junior high school corresponds with anyone else's I have no idea, even with England there were wide differences in terminology and organization of schools. For the sake of comparison here are the types of educational establishments that I attended (ages in brackets): infants school (5..6), primary school (7..10), junior high school (11..13, that is first to third form), senior high school (14..18, fourth form to upper sixth), university (19..21, bachelor's degree). My children however are attending schools described like this: grunnskole (6..12), ungdom skole (13..15), videregående skole (16..18) and might go on to any of a wide variety of further education establishments. Grunnskole can be translated roughly as primary but note that the age range is not the same as the English one, ungdom (literally youth) as junior high school (but note that most UK schools are not divided into junior and senior high schools) and videregående (literally further going) as senior high school. Perhaps WikiBooks needs a glossary that describes the target audiences. --kwhitefoot 11:37, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Some of our books are for specific government standards, and these can have audiences ("AP", "A-level", "college", ...) that might not make sense in other parts of the world. Most of our books only seem to be for older students and adults in general.
If a book claims to target a "junior college" (which I think is something like a junior high school or ungdom skole) then you should edit that text or use the talk page. Do you have an example of such text? --Kernigh 06:05, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The example that triggered my comment was the Talk:Algebra page linked in the first line of the comment. If you look at this page: Algebra:Functions you will see a 'breadcrumb' trail at the top that clearly identifies the page as primary school mathematics. The original discussion was about consistency and appropriate style of exposition; however, my point is that the terms used in the discussion were so poorly defined as to be misleading because they assume a common background that simply does not exist. As for government standards such as A-level (I have three of those), etc., they are well defined in theory but how many people could state with confidence, for instance, whether A-level physics in the UK is in any way similar to VK1+VK2 fysikk in Norway without having a summary of the standards easily accessible from WikiBooks so that they could decide whether or not a book described as suitable for one would be broadly suitable for the other. --kwhitefoot 09:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

A junior college is a community college- a 2 year college after high school. Usually a lot of adult education courses (learn how to use MS Word, learn conversational Spanish, etc) and general education courses. Sometimes they offer Associates degrees, they never offer Bachelor's or higher. Generally the people going there are either just taking a course or two, or are using it to get their pre-reqs for college done (junior colleges are incredibly cheap, you can do your first 2 years there for 10% the cost, then transfer). Level of education is generally poorer than a real college, science and math classes are laughable, but credits for english and the like will transfer to most major colleges. Something at a junior college level is pretty much late high school/early college material, with an emphasis on practical use instead of theory. --Gabe Sechan 10:31, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
That last comment can still be confusing to some: in some countries such as Germany, what transliterates as "high school" is what an American would call a college. In the US, a primary or elementary school is for about ages 6–10 and is usually preceeded by a kindergarten for 5-year olds. A US junior high school (often called a middle school) is for students about ages 11–13. A US high school is for about ages 14–17. A US college degree usually requires about 4 years with students generally starting at about age 18. A US university offers both college and post-graduate (usually just called graduate) education, the graduate education typically ending in a masters, doctorate, law, or medical degree. A doctorate degree is a research degree, and a masters degree is generally equivalent to the first 2 or 3 years of doctorate training. A US junior college is in theory equivalent to the first two years of college but in practice often resembles remedial high school or training for low-level professions. --JMRyan 23:37, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arranging the Books in a PDF Format

Why dont we arrange the open text books on wikipedia in a PDF format also?.That would be easier to read and access and go through the part of the book.We could do this at least for the developed books.And its revised versions can br published for eg. once a month..?

-archird

There was some earlier discussion about trying to write a MediaWiki plug-in that would allow conversion of Wikibooks content directly to PDF format. At the moment, the only way to accomplish this is to import the pages into a word processing program like Open Office (that doesn't require any $$$ but it does take quite a bit of time to download) and then do some minor cleanup to fit more into a book format, with export to a PDF file. That takes time. There are several Wikibooks, however, that have done this so far as "snapshots" from a specific dated version of Wikibooks.
Are you volunteering to help out with this task? --Rob Horning 20:45, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to volunteer for this task (and, indeed, have started on the Algebra WikiBook as a bit of practice). However, I would recommend LyX for this sort of thing (though it's a pain to install on Windows) because it outputs pretty LateX, which gives the ability to use the LaTeX maths stuff (and means that the alternate text for all the mathematical graphics can be used almost verbatim). In addition, I don't think a plugin would be that hard to write, provided someone who understands both the appropriate language (I can use Python, if that can be used in plugins) and LaTeX (which I am completely in the dark about). Odd bloke 14:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I think we should concentrate on creating print version of our books. Look at Programming:Python and How To Build A Computer - they have automatically-updated versions designed for print. It's not hard to create such versions - I can even write a tutorial if someone has any problems, but the best way is to learn from example. Books that have this form often don't need to be converted to PDF. And even if someone wants it, it becomes very easy (you just have to convert HTML to Acrobat format). --Derbeth talk 18:11, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I just have a couple of questions about print versions. First off, what paper size/margins should be used as standard? Secondly, what text should be included by default? Obviously the GFDL falls into this category, but how much of it and where can I get the right part(s) from? Odd bloke 01:33, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Again: see Python/Print version. This module is created automatically from chapters, GFDL is also included like template. I think it can be good example for all print versions (by "print version" I understand single HTML file here on Wikibooks, no PDF).
BTW, we can create something like "Requests for print versions" page. I can create some print versions from well-formated books, but I don't know, which ones need this. Someone will write a short tutorial how to create print versions and other people could help in this. --Derbeth talk 08:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm just thinking if, down the line, we intend to have text-books which will be used in classrooms, then we're going to need a format that a publisher will accept (ie. PDF). Though an HTML version may be easier, it doesn't allow references to page numbers or even particularly nice formatting, as LaTeX can... Odd bloke 16:07, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
You can create PDF much easier from a single HTML file - which print version is. Regardless we create PDF or not, print version are useful. --Derbeth talk 17:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I never meant to say otherwise, and apologise if I gave that impression. Nonetheless, these typesetting issues need to be addressed at some point, so I brought them up now, as I'm in the middle of PDF'ing the Algebra WikiBook. I don't really know enough about typography to even suggest anything, so I thought I'd throw the query out there for more experienced people to answer. Odd bloke 01:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Wikibooks policies

I know there is the little policy/vote thing, but I thought I'd bring it up here. We seem to be missing a few policies here at Wikibooks. Notably Wikibooks:Verifiability, Wikibooks:Cite sources, and Wikibooks:No original research. I am not positive which policies are really warranted here, but I thought I'd start building the Wikibooks policies. Please see my sandbox for an adapted start to the No original research policy. Any comments or tweaks are encouraged. Thanks. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

And wow, no policy about personal attacks. I have adapted the en.wiki NPA policy and have started a poll about enforcing it. Please see Wikibooks talk:No personal attacks. --LV (Dark Mark) 19:59, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yet another missing policy important to Wikibook integrity. Please see Wikibooks talk:No legal threats for poll to enforce. --LV (Dark Mark) 21:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that bringing over all those policies quickly is critical to resolving some of the issues we've had here.--09:21, 25 November 2005 (UTC) this comment from Jimbo Wales
I've been so busy on my books trying to get content up to an acceptable level, that I havent really taken the time to cite everything. I try to list at least a partial bibliography, but it's hard to keep up with all the citations. I guess that's going to be one of the next projects I start working on. --Whiteknight (talk) (current) 14:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disappearing User Page

My user page user:lazyquasar that I established to begin participating in Wikiversity keeps disappearing. Since there is no history I assume this is deletion by an administrator and not simple vandalism. I have been getting a lot of errors while browsing the wiki and I had a link to wikipedia user page on it w:user:lazyquasar so perhaps this is a manifestation of my browser? I am using Firefox 1.0.7. Any assistance would be appreciated. My wikipedia user account has a currently valid email for me. Thanks. Lazyquasar 18:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

There are some server error, maybe it just disappeared because of a bug. I can assure you that your user page hasn't been deleted by any of sysops. If a page is deleted, there is a notice on it. See Special:Log/delete --Derbeth talk 18:37, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Derbeth! I found the problem. I created the page at meta.wikimedia rather than en.wikibooks.org. I am getting bounced around attempting to find and follow wikiversity links and material and I must have been actually at meta while mentally at en.wikibooks.org/test/wikiversity. Thus I created the user page in a different wiki than I thought I was using. In the old days there were only two! 8) Thanks again! Lazyquasar 18:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Making Wikibooks Matter

I've been having a lot of meetings with very important people, billionaires, high level UN types, major nonprofits, and people are very very excited by the concept of Wikibooks as a serious project -- but unfortunately, the project itself has not been nearly serious enough. So we have allowed ourselves here to become a dumping ground for nonsense that doesn't belong in Wikipedia.

This is somewhat understandable -- part of the explanation is outlined above. The bureaucrats fell asleep, not enough admins were made. Also, people want the project to succeed and felt that allowing people wide latitude as to what they were doing was going to be helpful. But in fact, I think it turns out that allowing nonsense was one of the worst strategies for growth, because it has diluted the mission.

Wikipedia didn't grow because we let anyone write whatever they wanted. Wikipedia grew becuase I was firm from the very beginning about certain core policies that defined the project in a way that lots of people can understand and support it.

SJ asks whether the problem with "Get a girl" was a naming issue, a content issue, or what. The answer is yes in every regard. It was a shocking embarassment. It was extremely sexist (and making 4 sexist books instead of 1 is not a fit solution), it was incredibly stupid in content, it was original research, it was not a textbook, and it was a magnet for bad writing.

SJ asks as well whether a book "Building Healthy Relationships" or similar would be ok? Well, perhaps but probably not. Would such a book be NPOV? Would it contain serious references to peer-reviewed academic research? If so, then fine. But a rambling book of mostly idiotic opinions is not a textbook.

It's important to understand that not every sort of book used in a classroom is a textbook.

Because of all the problems we've seen here, my recommmendation is that we pursue something like the "directly enumerated" policy.--Jimbo Wales 09:31, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Everything you said makes sense to me, except for the part about the "Directly Enumerated" policy. What is that? --Whiteknight TCE 13:39, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

The next post is by Rob Horning. It is interrupted several times by the reply of Jimbo Wales.

Keep in mind that the reason why Wikibooks has become a dumping ground for content from Wikipedia is because it is often "forced" upon us by the community at Wikipedia, and in many ways we have been powerless to really stop the effort sometimes. The Wikipedia is so large that even a small "faction" can swamp the efforts on the other Wikimedia sister projects, especially if language is not a barrier (like it is between Wikipedia and Wikibooks).
Well, I'm here to defend you from that. I would recommend starting some rules here which give differential treatment to wikibookians over wikipedians in some borderline cases.--Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
VfD discussions come up and that large group from Wikipedia can dominate the discussions. This issue is going to improve over time, simply because the Wikibooks community is becoming larger and more established. Also, many of these special interest people who do come over for a specific book project end up staying on Wikibooks and helping out with other areas, and offer resistance to other Wikipedia groups trying to do the same thing. In this case, a stronger trans-wiki policy needs to be made across all Wikimedia projects.
There has also been a learning curve among other Wikimedia users as to what Wikibooks is all about. I have not even completely understood the whole relationship between each one of the projects. There is one school of thought that all of human knowledge can be found on all of the Wikimedia projects, including potentially offensive things like "How to get a girl" or "White Nationalism". I know that having these items becomes an embaressment when you are talking to a minister of education in some country, but other than suggesting it was against policy like a copyright violation or NPOV dispute, it is hard to find a rationale to remove the book.
It *is* a violation of NPOV. If we were to have a wikibook on "The history of racial movements in the United States" or something like that, then that'd be great. But a book explicitly advocating? Absolutely not.--Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a similar issue that comes up in the USA when trying to fight pornography or publication of offensive books as well, and the same arguments come up. Even a strict "textbook only" policy only offers some protection for a project like this, and in some ways only changes the format of the book, not the content. "No illegal content" offers some additional protection, but at the same time, almost all content can be considered illegal in some country of the world.
I don't think it is very similar to those issues at all. We are a serious effort to create textbooks, not a "free speech platform" for people to publish whatever nonsense they like.--Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Some progress has been made along these lines, however. The effort to turn Wikibooks into an incubator of new Wikimedia projects has ended, not only from general pronouncements by members of the Wikimedia Foundation board, but in actual practice as well. There were several attempts to start a new Wikimedia project here, and it used to be a common statement on the New Project Suggestions Page on Meta to start a Wikibook on the topic as a way to explore the idea. That common suggestion has all but disappeared on that page and is no longer even recommended on the Foundation-l either when a new project suggestions comes up.
Right now it could be argued that if a Wikipedia article exists on a topic, that it should be fair game on Wikibooks to develop a book-length project on the topic as well. Using this argument, both "How to get a girl" and "White Nationalism" would be allowed, as long as they conform to a NPOV policy and follow the other Wikibooks policies as well without regard to content. Similar Wikipedia articles on both topics do in fact exist.
I also want to emphasis that these extreme books are just that. They represent the periphery of what is being accomplished on Wikibooks, and many new very non-controvercial books like AP Computer Science are being started that represent not only the educational mission of Wikibooks, but show the potential of becoming something that we can all be very proud of. I recently put Astronomy up as a VfD, mainly because this is an example of a textbook that needs a massive cleanup, not because it is offensive content. That IMHO is where we should be focusing our energies and working to help improve this project. --Rob Horning 14:06, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
I absolutely agree that these books are at the periphery. That's why they are fit to be immediately deleted. They are totally not helpful to our mission. --Jimbo Wales 17:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
"Wikibooks is not a soapbox" (for advocating political agendas, for example) is already part of policy Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks. --Kernigh 01:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Feedback on my first wiki-book? ("Stuttering Therapy")

I've started moving my book "No Miracle Cures: A Multifactoral Guide to Stuttering Therapy" to wikibooks. The wiki-title is "Stuttering Therapy." Please send me suggestions or tell me what mistakes I made! E.g., I couldn't find how to move the book onto the "Medical: Clinical Medicine: Speech-Language Pathology" bookshelf (which I also created). I've moved the first chapter. I'll try to move the other chapters in the next week or two. Thomas David Kehoe 22:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

can you put a link to the book. I could not find it Juliusross 23:22, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Stuttering Therapy --Kernigh 15:28, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
You'd be better off splitting all of the chapters off onto their own pages. For example, the Introduction could go on Stuttering Therapy/Introduction and so on. Odd bloke 14:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC) unsigned comment by unknown user

[edit] How to link to Wikipedia and other sources

(see also Help:Contents)

Linking to Wikipedia See Help:How to edit a page#More_on_linking

Numbers instead of words for external links I tried the format [ http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X X], but frequently got numbers instead of words! It didn't happen all the time, and I didn't specify I wanted numbers. Could someone please explain to me what's going on? --Trebor1990 (17 March 2004)

Could you name an example page where this happened, so we can look at it to try to figure it out?
If you use [URL] with just the URL in brackets, you will get a number (useful for providing an in text reference). To see WORDS, use [URL WORDS]. For example, [ http://www.google.com/ GOOGLE] comes out as GOOGLE. Theresa knott 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Several modules use Template:Wikipediapar to link to Wikipedia. But today, it suddently stopped working -- go to any page where it is used, and it gives a long wikibooks URI, not the wikipedia URI it used to give. Is there any way for me to fix it? --70.189.75.148 03:46, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Reading_room/Archive_7"