Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2007/November

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of past discussions. 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 talk page.

Contents

CAPTCHA at login

Is there any way to remove the CAPTCHA at login for a specific user? For example if a user is blind, or is a bot (of the legit variety) which can't handle a CAPTCHA? I made one mistake on the password trying to log in to my bot's account, and now I have to wait a while (anyone how long?) until I can try again without the CAPTCHA :( – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Someone fixed this. pywikipediabot now loads the CAPTCHA so you can solve it :) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikijunior in Trouble

Wikijunior is in trouble. Since the new book of the quarter was taken off the front page we have gotten very little traffic. For example, in the last 14 days there have only been 6 edits adding any amount of substantive content in all of Wikijunior by anyone not named xixtas. I'm really not sure what to do at this point, but I hate to see the project die the way it has. Does anyone have any idea how we can generate more traffic at wikijunior? --xixtas talk 03:16, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Maybe improve the quality of the Wikijunior page and add the featured wikijunior books to it? --darklama 04:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
Try recruiting contributors from WikiProjects on en.wp? I did that for First Aid and got one person to join the light side. For an entire project, you'd probably be able to do better. I don't know which WikiProjects might be good targets though. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:08, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
What's counter-intuitive here is that there still are wikijunior books featured on the main page, more then one at a time even. Maybe we need to tweak the main page to feature a more prominent link to wikijunior? Maybe even replace the main page entirely with a "Portal" that would give visitors the option of visiting the with "real" main page, or the wikijunior main page? Maybe we need to do some kind of advertising blitz, both on wikimedia (mailing lists, blogs, wikipedia projects, etc) and off (websites for teachers and students). A lull in a project doesnt necessarily mean it's "dead" or "dieing", but it could just be a temporary reprieve. Whatever needs to be done to reverse the trend should be done though, because Wikijunior is an important part of what we do here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I added a more prominent link to Wikijunior on the main page, hopefully that will attract some attention. We already have a link to it in the side bar, where else can we advertise? Is the solution to put the collaboration of the quarter back onto the main page? If you can come up with a template that is sufficiently small, we would be able to put it right above the list of other featured books. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:17, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
As you've said there is more then one featured wikijunior book now, so it seems like having a quarter book again wouldn't make a difference. I think the more prominent link to Wikijunior was a good step, maybe add the wikijunior logo above it though? I suppose keeping people interested in writing books for children could be a problem. What about trying to attract teachers, parents, grandparents, etc? How about trying to find some old children's books and children's textbooks that are now public domain that could be added to wikijunior? Could it just be the time of year? How long has Wikijunior appeared to have been in trouble? --darklama 13:47, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
According to the page at meta, the wikijunior logo is just a proposal, not fully accepted. Let's start a process to formalize that logo, in parallel with the new wikibooks logo that is being discussed. Having a good logo for Wikijunior that we can plaster all over the place will certainly help things. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't know who's "in charge" of the current edition, but Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education (in its several editions) is written by education students. Maybe they'd be willing to put us in touch with the ECE instructors? --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
@Darklama - I would say that contributions to Wikijunior dramatically declined in February or March of 2007. @WhiteKnight - As far as publishing Wikijunior goes, I would like to figure out how to launch a stable version of Wikijunior at Wikijunior.org (which is owned by the foundation.) This is apparently something that was already okayed by the foundation, at one time, but I don't think anyone had ever decided how to do it. Anyway, I would like to propose that that website be launched, running mediawiki with a special default skin. One that removes most of the extraneous links and has bigger "kid-friendly" fonts and design features. The versions on this site could be protected and only admins could update them. I'm happy with any process that will move the Wikijunior logo selection process forward. @SB Johnny - Finding a way to get more teachers involved would be nice. -- xixtas talk 02:59, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
As a newbie here I find it quite confusing there is all these wiki sections. I don't know how new the wikijuniour part is but understand it takes time for search engines to list the content. The link as added whiteknight added above will help. The problem will nearly always be that someone searching will be provided with wikipedia links before they are provided with wikibooks links, thus the traffic goes to wikipedia or other sites and not to wikibooks
We don't know how many are reading the Wikijunior books merely how many are editing them. This could be a good thing as it may mean most of the books are quite advanced in development so need little editing (but probably not). One thing that definitely discourages people from editing or creating new Wikibooks titles (including myself) is the differing policies that Wikijunior has to Wikibooks. All this voting for new titles is very off-putting - my advice to anyone wanting to create a Wikijunior book is JUST DO IT! Xania talk 18:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I wonder when the whole having to vote for new titles came about and if its something that could just be marked as rejected/obsolete? Was there every any discussion and consensus decision that new titles have to voted on? I have a hard time believing it was something agreed to. Maybe thats what needs to be done to make Wikijunior better and encourage more contributions. --darklama 19:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
reset

FYI, Rob Horning apparently declared it to be policy on 17 August 2005 because the previous policy was that no new books could be started. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 19:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any indication that Wikijunior:New Title Policy was ever declared an official policy nor ever discussed and agreed to, but rather Robert had started it on August 16 2005 as a proposed policy so new books could be started. I think it could be marked as rejected with a link to Wikibooks:What is Wikijunior --darklama 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
I was just paraphrasing the first sentence of Wikijunior talk:New Title Policy. That sounds like as good a solution as any. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 20:32, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that you can create a new book at any time, but that they try to reduce the number of new books being worked on simultaneously to try and consolidate effort. I've already started at least one book without going though the voting process, and it's a successful book (if I will toot my own horn a little). Maybe the new title policy needs to be "tweaked" to reflect this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:25, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry I havn't injected my $0.02 into this discussion until now, but I'd like to clear this up a bit. When Wikijunior was first started, those "founders" of the original project (I wasn't really one of them) had a bunch of huge and grandiose ideas, including trying to start a monthly magazine and getting all sorts of grant money, including the original "seed money" that was donated explicitly to help get the project off the ground. BTW, I have seen absolutely no accounting of that original grant of money, which was fairly substantial, from the WMF. Even the original terms of what that money was supposed to be used for has never really been nailed down effectively, and as far as I can tell, it got dumped into the great black hole pit of the Wikimedia server farm. I could go on even more, but moving on.....
The number of books for Wikijunior was restricted in the beginning to just the original 3 titles, Wikijunior Solar System, Big Cats, and South America. During the first year or so, there were several attempts to start additional Wikijunior books from several individuals, but the "policy" was to keep just those books, and Wikibooks admins simply deleted those "alternative" Wikijunior books, usually with a more or less polite reply as to why additional Wikijunior books couldn't be written yet. By the time I got involved with Wikijunior (and a couple of months after I became an admin) I had to deal with one of these "alternative" Wikijunior books, and I didn't feel quite like deleting it outright. So I tried to come up with a system that could generate additional titles, but at the same time help out in reducing the huge number of new book titles that has been an ongoing problem with Wikibooks even from the very beginning. Since absolutely none of the original "founders" of Wikijunior were even active at the time (and to the best of my knowledge, still aren't), I tried to set up some new policies for Wikijunior and make a request for comments about the new policy on the Staff Lounge.
As there wasn't really any formal policy I could invoke in the Wikibooks Deletion Policy to remove non-approved Wikijunior books from the new Wikijunior policy, I didn't see any real reason why I should be zealous and delete the new Wikijunior books that were created outside of the new book process. A sort of mutual understanding came up, but never formalized, to not necessarily put the Wikijunior books on the "front page" of the main Wikijunior page (or on the main page of Wikibooks) that were created out of the new book process. They were still noted on the talk page, but otherwise not given the same distinction.
This was also a sort of experiment to see if restricting the number of titles on a sub-project like Wikijunior could help improve the overall writing quality of the existing books. In some ways, I would like to think it was successful, as there have been several Wikijunior books that have been created over the years which have a fairly high quality, and the number of Wikijunior books that achieved "Book of the Month" or "Featured Book" status is quite high compared to the rest of Wikibooks in general. But this is a point that certainly can be debated and argued over.
I would love to see some sort of restoration of a "Wikijunior" section on the main page of Wikibooks, but I have deliberately chosen not to engage in a sort of edit war, particularly on the main page. I hope that we can get another "generation" of Wikijunior contributors somehow, but it is going to take some real creative work to get that to happen. I certainly hope the effort to request assistance on foundation-l turns out to help even a little bit. --Rob Horning 20:52, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rob, how are you? The history is interesting, I certainly hope some of it gets distilled into History of Wikibooks. The post to foundation-l was very depressing. Few people commented on it at all. I posted about it on my blog and got a few comments, but nothing helpful. That the original grant money has all but vanished is depressing as well, because I can think of a lot of things we could do with that money right now to help revitalize wikijunior. Of course, the foundation has been terrible at keeping people informed of finances, and this current "emergency" fundraiser is evidence of this. Pursuing grant money is something that I believe we should be doing aggressively, but I wouldn't allow the foundation to "oversee" that money should any be awarded. Not, at least, without some kind of accountability.
Also, what you said about the genesis of the Wikijunior new book policy is eye-opening as well. I can't believe that people were so restrictive about the creation of new books, and that as much as anything could be a reason for the low popularity of the wikijunior project. Maybe we need to rethink the new book policy from the ground up, to make it more accessible to new authors. I would like to get User:Xixtas' take on that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:26, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the new title policy was a good idea at the time and probably kept Wikijunior from totally dying after the initial wave of contributors abandoned the project. I wouldn't have any objection to re-evaluating the policy from the ground up now, though. --xixtas talk 02:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Update

I've posted a message about Wikijunior to the foundation-l. I'm hoping that it attracts some attention and gets the ball rolling on a few ideas. Specifically:

  1. I've started a new logo selection process for wikijunior at meta:Wikijunior/Logo. I would like to try and keep this process in sync with the wikibooks logo selection discussion, and try to maximize parallelism between those two efforts as much as possible.
  2. I suggested turning www.wikijunior.org into a read-only host for completed wikijunior books. Doing this may require some technical effort on our part because the devs are very busy. Things such as designing a new child-friendly interface for the site are things that we can't expect the devs to do for us.
  3. I brought up the idea of physical publication, or inclusion in the OLPC project. Both things would be good. Let's see how the foundation reacts to this.
  4. We need to come up with outreach ideas for attracting new contributors to wikijunior. I think it's becoming obvious that we arent going to attract new contributors just by advertising on this site. We need to reach out and bring in new contributors. we could spam wikipedia, but i don't feel like that route has ever been fruitful in the past. We may need to find a way to contact children's educators directly. What kinds of forums could we utilize for this?

I do want to see what the foundation people say, but I also realize that a lot of the burden of any changes is going to fall onto our shoulders here. That's why I would really like to get more input from people here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:08, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

First time on the Wiki and am confused

I thought this was a book discussion page - is there a subject area? This is my first time on the Wiki so please excuse my ignorance and post some suggestions about finding a spot or locale on books online for elementary. Thank you! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.55.136.205 (talk • contribs) 19:48, November 3, 2007.

There is a discussion page for every module of every book. This page is for asking general questions.
We're currently working on categorizing books by reading level, but it is only just beginning. For now, your best bet is to search for books by subject instead. You may be interested in WB:AS and WB:ABS as starting points for your search. Hope that helps. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Special groups department

What do people think of this page? In all my time here as a wikibookian, I've never even heard of it, so I can't imagine that most other people have either. It's also the only non-user page that includes Template:Wikijunior. I was going to use that template for a different purpose when I found this page.

Maybe I should have brought this up on VfD, but we don't necessarily need to consider deletion. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

More Categorization templates

I've created a few simple templates that can help to make clear some aspects about a book to new readers. These are:

Also, I've started a draft of a description of various reading levels at Wikibooks:Reading Levels. There is now a subject page to keep books organized by reading level at Subject:Reading Levels. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:50, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, thank you for making it; I would support the guideline at first glance but should take a closer look. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 19:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe it shouldnt even be a guideline, maybe we need a different classification of page such as "information page" or something. Whenever I write a new page in the Wikibooks: namespace, I always feel like i have to tag it with {{proposed}}. If we can find a better place to describe it, we could delete that information page entirely.
As to the templates, information about target audience, prerequisites, and other information that should be available before reading really makes sense to be put into template form. I'm actually surprised that nobody (myself includeD) have done this previously. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I think information pages should go in the help namespace. I think prerequisites, corequisite and reading level are already part of the infobox template or can be expanded to include that information. --darklama 21:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Forgive me if i'm wrong, but i'm pretty sure the infobox templates have been abandoned wholesale. I know that I do not use them for the books that I write, and I find that it's very rare to see infoboxes in books that other people are writing too. If the point that you are making that that people have previously tried to include this information, then you are correct. However, if you are trying to say that we should all turn to using the cumbersome infoboxes, then I would have to disagree with you strongly.
Information pages could go into the help pages, although I don't feel that is an optimal solution for it. I would want to see a significant cleanup of the help space before we all decide to try and cram more unorganized garbage into it. I don't see a reason why information about our books could not be hosted in the Wikibooks: namespace. I don't think it needs to be reserved for policy or guideline pages, but instead should be free to contain information pages. Notice that a page that contains information about Wikibooks isn't necessarily "helpful" in the way that I think people going to the help pages are interested in. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think the infobox templates have been abandoned. They were updated a bit ago when discussion regarding removing some information from the infobox templates was discussed. I was merely suggesting that the infobox template provides for the same info and that this might be duplicated effort. Well if you think they should go into the wikibooks namespace, maybe we need a new template to make it clear what informative pages in the wikibooks are not to be mistake for policy/guideline proposals. However I don't see why the help namespace has to be limited to generic or general help. --darklama 22:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The only limits that i'm trying to put put on the help namespace is that it should be organized, and it shouldnt be filled with all sorts of unrelated things. If we move this to the helpspace, it's just going to disappear like all the rest of the things in there. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is this allowed?

[1]. I didn't want to comment, since licensing isn't my specialty, but I think it warrants some attention. Requiring people who contribute to that particular book to PD-license their work seems at odds with the "all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation Licence" notice on the edit page. As well, the notice would have to be placed on every page of the book to come anywhere close to binding, I think. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:54, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I dont know, i'm not an expert in it either. If it's here, I think it has to be GFDL compatible. However, people have tried to cross-license books in the past. So long as the notice is prominent, I'm inclined to say that it's acceptable. the Roman Catholicism book is attempting to be released in the same way (although it's not a separate book anymore). This is an issue that we had discussed previously with all the other copyright issues, and we never made any substantial progress on. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:03, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I would say its not appropriate because public domain means different things in different countries which may not be compatible with the GFDL, some countries may not even recognize/acknowledge public domain, duel-licensing under both GFDL and PD makes no sense - however its not even saying that, and because of all those issues I think its against Wikibooks' policy to allow it to remain here. Public domain does not guarantee the freedoms required by the GFDL in all countries that recognize its enforceability. --darklama 19:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the issue is whether or not it can remain here, PD materials are allowed to be uploaded to wikibooks. If the licensing is the problem, then we remove the licensing tag from the book and say that it is simply released under the GFDL now. If one person makes an edit to the page that is released under the GFDL, the entire derivative work becomes a GFDL work. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:02, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I've had a couple interesting posts on my blog about this, and people there seem to generally agree with what we are saying here. PD really can't be allowed in this instance, because we can't require contributors to release works into the public domain. I'm going to remove those templates from the book,s and possibly delete the templates all together since they should never be used. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! I was told to introduce myself as a new user here, wow it's so nice to be a new user again ^^. Anyway, my name is Jóhann and I am editing here mainly for langauges. My first book, Manx, I am trying to complete. My main project is the Icelandic wikibooks where I have definitely shaped up the Language department and making it the most active department there, by making bookshelf pages for the languages with beginners, intermediate, and advance guides in the common languages to not so common (like Kazakh). Maybe I can contribute that here. I am more interested in a Tutorial guide rather than divided langauges like Nouns, Adjectives, Colours and such, which is not a good way to teach a language. So I also plan in the future to adjust the Icelandic book to a tutorial guide since that has not seen much activity in a while. Uhm, what else...I am a university student studying langauges (nice guess?), and I am also a beraucrat on the Chechen wikipedia and sysop on the Faroese Wikipedia. You want to contact me, leave me a message on my talk page obviously. Ciao! :) --Girdi 23:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Improving those books to be tutorials and not simply lists of words broken by category is a good thing. Good luck in your work, and let us know if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I am glad to see people agree with my vision. ^^ It seems the author of the Galician book at the moment is doing the same. So I am not the only one ^^ --Girdi 23:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

relatively new to Wikibook

I recently started making significant additions to the Wikibook for Celestia which hadn't been worked on for a while. Some kinds of misuse of English tend to grate on my nerves, so I may be making small changes to some other titles occasionally, as well as grumping in some of the Reading Rooms. Whiteknight's welcome message inspired me to introduce myself here. Of course, help on the Celestia book by other astronomy enthusiasts would be welcomed! Selden 20:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Selden and welcome! We would be happy to see you clean things up if you so desire! Celestia looks like a very interesting book, I'll have to take a closer look at it some time. Regards, Mattb112885 (talk to me) 22:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible Tables and related

It would be possible to have collapsible tables like wikipedia, seems that the Mediawiki:Common.js it's not the same for wikibooks and thus, for example, renders the template Template:hidden useless:

Title text here

Body text line 1
Body text line 2


It would be nice to have these tables :)

Bunder 11:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This template isn't useless to me, it appears to work perfectly as expected. What doesnt it do that you are expecting it to? Can you give an example of a wikipedia collapsible table for comparison? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Here [2] are examples of the correct behavior of the template --Bunder 07:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The template here just seems to need to be updated to include more optional parameters. Other than that there is no differences that I saw from a quick look. Just because MediaWiki:Common.js isn't identical to Wikipedia's doesn't mean that the code to allow collapse boxes isn't here. I don't have any problems with that box either. Its currently collapsed and when I click it, it expands. Is it not collapsed? Is it not expanding? Unless we know what isn't working for you, there isn't anything we can do. --darklama 14:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
My mistake, i wasn't allowing javascript to wikibooks Bunder 21:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone help me understand why the hidden template isn't working for me here? --xixtas talk 01:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

For complex parameter values which break templates, always try using parametername=whatever or #=whatever. My sig breaks just about everything, so I'm used to it now ;) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I guess it didn't like the plus signs. -- xixtas talk 12:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from Fyedernoggersnodden

Hey; Thanx as well to Mike.lifeguard for the welcome, even if (As I presume) it was just an AWB thing. I'm a Computer Science and Math student myself, and am interested in doing what I can to improve the wikibooks that are within the realm of what I've learned so far. For now, though, I'm reading Cognitive_Psychology_and_Cognitive_Neuroscience between classes, out of sheer curiosity.--Fyedernoggersnodden 00:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No AWB involved; we don't use bots to welcome here. I'm glad you're interested in Cognitive. I'll be contributing to that once I have time. If you have suggestions for where to start as you're reading through it, drop me a note on my talk page. See you around! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

World Stamp Catalogue/Soviet Union

I represent the Russian WikiProject Philately. My colleagues and I want to contribute to World Stamp Catalogue for Soviet Union and Russia. All interested persons are welcome to join us. --Michael Romanov 19:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I am too.--Mariluna 19:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I am yet another colleague of Michael Romanov from among the contributors to the Russian Philately Project so nicely introduced above by him. Please feel free to contact me. --Leonid Dzhepko 20:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Welcome to Wikibooks, let us know if you need any help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:45, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Whiteknight! We intend to make Soviet Union section of the WSC bilingual (both English and Russian) for convenience of users. Unfortunately, some talk on discussion pages may be in Russian, since not all Russian WikiProject Philately participants are well versed in English. Hopefully it is OK with Wikibooks. --Leonid Dzhepko 08:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be a problem here. This is English Wikibooks, not Russian Wikibook, and this book isn't about learning Russian. Both the book pages and discussion pages need to be in English so English readers and writers understand whats going on. --darklama 14:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Dear Darklama, as Leonid kindly explains above, the Wikibooks Stamp Catalogue for Soviet Union and Russia will be in both English and Russian that would be extremely useful for Russian-speaking users and readers who cannot speak English. Would it be better if we at first provide stamp information in English following its translation in Russian? The talk page currently contains discussion of technical aspects only, first of all templates, and we provide English names for section titles. We cannot secure all the discussion in English only because there are only two of us who can speak and write English. As you can see, we have two templates and five versions now and are trying to improve them and select the best one. With kindest regards, --Michael Romanov 17:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that its suppose to be a book cataloging stamps for English speaking stamp collectors, this page would be inconsistent with the rest of the book which I think consists only of English. Also there are plenty of English-speaking users here who cannot speak Russian who could not participate in any of the Russian conversations and could not improve the Russian translations. Perhaps a solution would be to create a Russian translation of this book on Russian Wikibooks and those of you from the Russian Philately Project that can speak English can at first help in the translation process? After that then those who can speak English and Russian can work on improving the book or that page at both websites? Creating a sort of interlanguage collaboration between the two Wikibooks projects to improve both books, while making it easier for those who can only speak one language to help improve there local language version. --darklama 14:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily see it as a problem for conversations to be held in a different language here. However, the burden is on you to ensure that english-speaking participants are included in the decision-making process, should any such users wish to participate. So long as you are willing to translate, it shouldnt matter what language you speak in. As for the content pages, if you want to do a russian version, you may be more interested in hosting a parallel version at the Russian Wikibooks as well, and include an interwiki link from here to there (and vice-versa). That's probably the best solution, so that russian speakers will be able to find and participate in the book. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:44, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly! Dear Darklama and Whiteknight, this is what we intended to do and what we did. We develop the English version only here, and the Russian parallel version there, at the Russian Wikibooks. And both versions have already been linked with interwiki. You cannot imagine how excited and enthusiastic the project contributors are and we thank you so much for all your outstanding support and friendly advice. Have a great weekend! Sincerely, on behalf of the Russian WikiProject Philately, --Michael Romanov 10:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, world! That`s me. Nickpo 14:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello

hello! i am antome, i will be on wikibooks, mostly in the "Game Maker" areas. I have just made the An outline of game maker book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Antome (talk • contribs) .

Hello Antome, welcome to Wikibooks! I'll take quick read-through of your book, let me know if you need any help with it. This is hardly an area of expertise for me, however. If you need any help, or if you have any questions about how things work around here, leave us a question and we will get back to you quickly. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

WritersUA conference

I dont know if everybody knows this, but I got invited to the WritersUA conference in March to talk about Wikibooks to an audience of software documentation writers. The information about my presentation is located at: http://www.writersua.com/ohc/track1.htm

Two notes:

  1. If anybody has any suggestions on what I should talk about, I would love to hear them. My presentation is supposed to last about 75 minutes, including about 15 minutes for questions (at least). The people there are familiar with wikis, and they should all be familiar with wikipedia, so that's a good starting point. Most of them should also be familiar with Copy-Left licensing, so if I talk about that at all, it will be brief.
  2. If anybody is going to be in the Portland area March 16-19, let me know and we might be able to meet up.

This could be a great opportunity for us to really advertise wikibooks and attract some new contributors/readers. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What's up with the over-protection

Coming from the most vandalized wiki (the English Wikipedia), I have to say there is an unsettling amount of page protection going on here. This runs counter to the defining quality of wikis, which makes them so great. I saw a couple of simple typos I wanted to correct, but couldn't because they were protected. I don't know if these pages are fully protected or just semi-protected (no anon edits), but it doesn't really matter. As editing Wikipedia, Wiktionary, and Commons, takes up all my time already, I have no plans to be a consistent or even semi-consistent editor for WikiBooks, and thus see no reason to create a user account at this time. With me, WikiBooks is only losing two trivial edits, but in general is probably losing much much more as far as potential editors go.

A few years ago, I merely read articles on Wikipedia and didn't think to edit them, however after seeing some obvious spelling and grammar errors, that "edit this page" button was just begging to be clicked on. Everytime I ran into an error when reading articles, I would fix it. I found myself going out of my way to correct articles (i.e. going to pages I had no interest in reading). When I got involved to the point where I was going to talk and other namespace pages, I decided to get a username to be part of the community - not to simply edit articles. If I didn't have this open experience, I wouldn't be a Wikipedia editor at all, let alone a very dedicated one. I got involved with Commons and Wiktionary in much the same way, usually because of trans-wiki linking. Likewise, I came here to find a appropriate link to use on Wikipedia, saw a couple of errors I wanted to correct on my way, which could have been my first step into being a full-time editor, but got derailed by all the protected pages. I'm sure others feel the same. This is very unfortunate, as WikiBooks has lots of potential, but desperately needs more editors.

Vandalism sucks, but it's small price to pay for freedom. Vandals are annoying, but editors are more important.

On Wikipedia, we have a behavioral guideline called "Assume good faith", I suggest WikiBooks adopt this too.

Sincerely,

one less editor aka 68.74.158.43 17:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you won't be editing. I'm not sure which pages you're referring to. So far as I know, Wikibooks actually has far less page protection than Wikipedia. Assuming good faith doesn't mean unprotecting everything; there is a balance to be had. If you like, feel free to tell us where the balance is off. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 18:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template:Nowcommons

Could someone familiar with template syntax get this to put images into Category:NowCommons unless a different name is specified, in which case put the image into Category:NowCommons (different filename). This is because images which have the same filename at Commons can simply be deleted, whereas those which have a different filename need extra attention before deletion. Thanks in advance. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 00:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm on it. give me a minute. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I think that fixed it. Double check me, but the few images i looked at seemed correct. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I think the categories were switched; all the images listed there now have the same name on commons. I think our friendly job-cue-category bug is going to keep them from switching over though. I'll test by moving and tagging another image. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No, your version was right. I should've known better... – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I found the real problem. When you hit "add {{nowcommons}}" on CommonsHelper, it always puts {{NowCommons|1=filename.ext}} regardless of whether the filename changed or not. Is it possible to put images into the different filename category if parameter1 != FULLPAGENAME? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Well there's nothing like a template breaking to spur one to learn about parser functions. I finally figured out what the real problem was & fixed it. *feels proud* – Mike.lifeguard | talk 04:33, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

{{query}}

I don't know if anyone has noticed an error that occurs sometimes with the {{query}} template. Here is a screenshot showing that some of the contents of the template are being shown on the page. Purging the page undoes this. Ideas? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 21:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

A while back, darklama came up with a mechanism to automatically move a page into the speedy delete category after a certain number of days. It appears to me that it's this mechanism that is failing. I dont know enough about it (and don't have the time tonight to go picking through it) so you are going to need Darklama's input on it. Judging from the nature of the error, I would guess that {{Lastedit}} is the culprit here. I assume that under some conditions, this template returns the null string. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibook on Critical Thinking?

Critical Thinking is something that I've often found amiss in the last few weeks. I wonder if a Wikibook teaching it would be at all useful. Here's what I could imagine in terms of contents:

  1. Psychology: reading between the lines
  2. Logic: recognizing good and bad arguments
  3. Rhetorics: noticing when you're being influenced
  4. Science: preparing for the untold part of the picture
  5. Media literacy: identifying and counteracting bias
  6. Developing and laying out your opinion

Would anybody be interested in developing this Wikibook with me or studying it?

Junesun 16:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know enough about critical thinking to write. You might want to look at Effective Reasoning if you haven't already. Hoogli 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello (and a question)

Hello everybody! I'm a new user (although I registered almost four months ago I write now) and I have one question - how to upload a PDF file? I have finished two books, but there is a lot formating in them which I don't want to be lost so I think it would be the best that I upload the books and then somebody other can convert it to HTML? Advice anybody?--Vorkalloner 16:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Vorkalloner, welcome to Wikibooks. Under the assumption that you're willing to list the books under the GFDL and would not mind if an editable copy (in the form of HTML) was available (it wouldn't be a simple "conversion" though, it would have to go into the wiki syntax and all of that), PDF files are loaded using the "upload file" link on the toolbar on the left, which takes you to this page. From that page you can not only upload images, but also PDF files. Good luck! Mattb112885 (talk to me) 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gita

  • I wrote Bhagwat Gita in Wiki Books named as "Gita".Earlier I wanted to write Book Name as Srimad Bhagwat Gita or Bhagwat Gita. Later I selected only Gita. Can you suggest right name for this book?
  • I see some dot lines like -------- and these lines make square. In this square some of my writings of Srimad Bhagwat Geeta or Bhagwat Gita or Gita are written. Can you please help me? What does it mean? Should I delete those lines or Should I modify or Does it mean that these sentences needs modification? Kindly help me. Thanks and regards.Jaipaldatta 19:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
The lines that you are talking about with the dashes around them are known as "preformatted text". If a line starts with a space or a tab, it will become preformatted. Make sure that all the paragraphs in your book do not start with a space or a line. As to the name of your book, whichever you think is appropriate is probably the best. "Gita" is very simple and easy to remember, so you may want to use that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:58, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikibooks:Census

Apparently, people at meta are trying to perform some kind of wikimedia-wide census. I don't know how exactly this is going to work, and I can't find any information about it. However, my inability to find information about this doesnt mean that it isn't really happening. We have been asked to write questions for the census, and we are supposed to have a bunch of questions written up by this Sunday (11 November).

A few questions have already been written, although all of them should be open for editing and improvement. When the time comes, I would also like to ask all wikibookians to participate in the census (however they do it) so that we can be properly represented. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Soft redirection for wikiversity materials

I'm starting to work on making "small-scope" Subject pages, and while checking links for Subject:Cichorium intybus I noted that I will be running into a lot of links on the Field Guide, which is a long-abandoned book started in '04 by User:TUF-KAT (who seems to have long disappeared from wikibooks). With this in mind, I'm thinking about replacing pages in that book and probably some other long-abandoned stubs with soft redirects to Wikiversity. For that book in particular, the "wildflowers" section has a ton of redlinks and only 4 content pages, and even the content isn't much to look at.

I think it might make sense for now to either replace the entire "wildflowers/plants" directory of that book (again, mostly just redlinks) to the Wikiversity bloom clock. In the future we could perhaps instead just import bloom clock materials (such as v:BCP/Cichorium intybus) to either the field guide or dichotomous key (the DK should probably be merged with this book anyway, since making a single DK for all life forms is pretty much impossible). Currently the bloom clock takes advantage of DPL to make regional categories in any case, so the BC keys actually function as field guides quite well (and there are nearly 450 plants on it at the moment, as opposed to the 4 on the Field Guide).

Anyway, sound like a good idea? --SB_Johnny | PA! 14:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I worry that the bloom clock is not necessarily a stand-in replacement for the field guide book. Even though both are about plants, I think they are covered in different ways. However, the field guide book is long-abandoned, and I think it's fair to assume that TUF-KAT is never coming back to wikibooks, at least not to contribute like he once did. If the field guide did contain good book-like materials, I think it would be more prudent to merge those into other books. If there are no other suitable books, a better Idea might be to leave the book as a stub (because somebody may eventually expand on it), post several prominant links to Wikiversity (not redirects, but just large links), and find a way to advertise both the field guide and the bloom clock together both on this site, on wikiversity, and in other places as well. I have no problem promoting the bloom clock or any other wikiversity resource, but I am hesitant to sacrifice an entire book in order to do that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the idea is to eventually import the BCP pages to wikibooks, once there has a been a few years of data collection and the dichotomous keys are developed a bit more. The clock's pages could then be transcluded into as many field guides as appropriate, but with additional text explaining local distribution and status. --SB_Johnny | PA! 13:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

GFDL requirement for book from other source

If I translate only one section from other GFDL book, for example, http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Secure-Programs-HOWTO/why-write-insecure.html, I must comply with all requirement in GFDL.

  • 4. In addition, you must do these things in the Modified Version:
    • D. Preserve all the copyright notices of the Document.
    • H. Include an unaltered copy of this License: This would make the wikibooks pages flood by big text of the GFDL?

--Ans 06:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I know, a link to the original will satisfy the first requirement. The whole Wikibooks project has a copy of the GFDL here; each individual book doesn't need it's own copy. Happy editing! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 15:54, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Mike is exactly right. Every individual book doesnt need a copy of the GFDL because the entire wikibooks project has a copy already. In this sense, we can think of the entire wikibooks website as a single "aggregate" work. That is, of course, until somebody separates out a single book by printing or something similar, and separates a book from the wikibooks project. In that case, it would need it's own copy. If you are translating from another site, make sure you leave a note about the source of the material. Also, if you want to make the licensing clear, you can use {{GFDL}}. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
But when people click view source (which is "Transparent copy", according to GFDL), they won't get the text of GFDL. Hmm, ok, it's their responsible, to reinsert the GFDL section, if they want to redistribute the individual document. However, the copyright notice (#4D in GFDL 1.1), must be still preserved in all individual documents in this collection. Besides, how about the "History section" (according to GFDL)? --Ans 05:46, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The view expressed by Whiteknight is his own interpretation and is not consensual, even the "creators" of the system/concept aren't clear how it should be viewed. I have previously disagreed with WK on the view that Wikibooks is an aggregation of works: But agree that Wikipedia is. I have attempted to provide all the works I have contributed here with it's own copy of the GFDL on the version intended for printing (as it is intended to create a stand alone version), and an copyrights/author attribution section; As for any other version (for use online) the bottom of a page will informs users that all pages are under GFDL and link to the license should satisfy the requirements.
We should keep in mind that Wikibooks isn't licensed under the GFDL but under the GFDL with other limitations (check the copyright section); Translations have a special section on the GFDL. They qualify as a modification and have to comply with that section 4 you partially indicated; must have a distinct name, list authors of the original document and the modification, etc... if you only fallow Mike indication, any hardcopy of the modification would violate the GFDL (even using the other limitations Wikibooks use), the best way is to preserve all the information of the original work in any modified version or at least attempt to; This seems to be a fair requirement. --Panic 16:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The only limitations to the GFDL imposed by Wikibooks is in regard to what is allowed to be hosted on Wikibooks. The limitations have nothing to do with what anyone is allowed to do with the books/documents if hosted or redistributed elsewhere, or printed. I could for example take a book from this website, create a cover page for it, add sections to it which cannot be freely copied, make a note of those sections, in the history section, print it and sell it for profit. Alternatively I could create a book from scratch under the GFDL with sections not covered by the GFDL and host it on some website. Anyone could use the sections covered by the GFDL from my book as a bases for a book on Wikibooks. The limitations just doesn't allow non-GFDL sections to be added to Wikibooks. --darklama 17:17, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
That is incorrect, it suffices to take a look into the extended limitations to the GFDL as written on Wikibooks:Copyrights to read "Use in hardcopy" (not controlled by Wikibooks or Wikimedia) and "Use on the Internet" (that doesn't cover only Wikimedia controlled content).
What is "imposed" by Wikibooks is the use of the GFDL with those extra limitations/considerations, not only on Wikibooks but on every subsequent derivation/modification, copy or distribution in whatever form it is created or displayed inside or outside of Wikibooks and Wikimedia control.
If you make a modification/translation for distribution, you would have to comply with the section Ans indicated, that defines some limitations to the coverpage you could use, title and other data. If you add any text to a GFDL text it must comply to the GFDL, so in the example you give all the content is up for grabs (as in usable for GFDL distribution or uses defined on the license). And in the last phrase you are also incorrect non GFDL content can be used on GFDL works if a compatible license was used or if the copyright holder (not the authors, as seen on the VfD discussion on the UNESCO work) agree to it, but from that moment on it would indeed be all under the GFDL (that was probably what you intended to state). --Panic 18:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
Another interesting discussion would be if other GFDL content (not originated on Wikimedia under those limitations) and even in part in opposition to the extra limitations/considerations could be used...
My view is that if no direct stated opposition, or collision with the required limitations is present it can be used; This creates the problem that not every GFDL content is compatible with "our" GFDL + limitations license and viceversa for future iterations since the limitations would apply. --Panic 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
My "views" on this topic are not just my personal interpretations, they are the way things are here, even if you don't agree with me. In fact, I dont remember anybody asking you what your opinion was on the issue, although you are more then happy to tell us your "version" of it repeatedly at every available opportunity. This website represents a single "work", from a technical level this entire site is served from a single database. This is the only way in which the Wikibooks website remains compliant with the GFDL. Using a flawed interpretation that every individual book and page is a separate work means that this entire site is a copyvio. Since this is not the case, you can stop saying otherwise, especially to users who are new and possibly confused enough already. Considering that your minority view has been shown on numerous occasions to be faulty, it would probably be in everybody's best interests if you excused yourself from this and future discussions on the topic. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
Please be civil. If you wish to contest my opinion or validate yours you may start if so inclined by providing some information to validate and instruct us non believers about your claims "This website represents a single "work", from a technical level this entire site is served from a single database." doesn't make sense even at a technical level. --Panic 03:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I have nothing to validate, it's not my "opinion", it's the fact of our project. There is simply no other way to see it. How many times have you done this? You say things that are bogus, you belittle people who are trying to be rational by calling thruths "opinions", you refuse to understand the explanations that people give you, and the list goes on. I'm not being uncivil, i've grown tired of your particular brand of trolling, and i'm not going to allow you to spread misinformation to people who genuinely need advice about licensing. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

That affirmation is not correct, this view that Wikibooks is a single work is not a fact, it has no base in any available record or even Wikimedia statements. As far as I know I'm not the only one that contests this view (and not the only Wikibookian that thinks so) on the other hand you are the only one that has so far defended the other "theory". I'm no zealot and can accept that you may be correct or at least have some points that would support your view, but it irks me that you can claim to have a superior and better understanding only because you claim so.
Since this has no bearing on the first posters question (but relates to the global discussion), I don't see any harm in adding a bit more here (but we have already discussed this without any conclusion), I'm as free as yourself to defend a different viewpoint and don't like your attempt to force your interpretation as gospel and how you react to different opinions.
We can take a simple example the project name is in plural (Wikibooks) in contrast to Wikipedia or Wikidicionary that in itself provides some clues that the intention was to have the project around several independent works. Then there is the legal framework the GFDL provides I call your attention that you may be confusing or have worded things wrong, an aggregation of independent works is not the same as "This website represents a single "work" ", all works continue to be independent and each with his own license and copyright statement (I grant you that pages outside of the books could be seen as single work, a collection, but I can't claim to be as certain as you on that regard), this aggregation view has implications on how pages have/can been moved from work to work. This is why I disagree with your view that "Every individual book doesn't need a copy of the GFDL because the entire wikibooks project has a copy already." this is just not so.
If you can't accept that you may be wrong and feel that this discussion should extend any further I will happily continue to argue my point but taken in consideration our past discussion I doubt it would lead anywhere and only be a re-hash of what has been said, but please be more open to others having different ideas and the right to express them. txs... (if you can't remember what we have said on the subject I think you can find it on Rob's talk page history, on your's and mine) --Panic 15:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's play this game, again. First, the fact that "Wikibooks" is a plural name doesnt indicate anything about the intentions of the founders of this project with regard to licensing. Wikibooks was based, technologically and ideologically on Wikipedia, which is considered to be a single work for the sake of licensing (with the addition of non-GFDL images, which technically makes it an aggregate). There is no reason to make the assumption that somehow Wikibooks must be any different from the Wikipedia model, regardless of the fact that our name sounds like a plural. "Wikibooks" is a proper noun, and the trailing 's' does not imply plurality. Second, the fact that this website only contains a single copy of the GFDL means that it must either be a single work, or a single aggregation. The only reason this would be an aggregation is if we have a GFDL document combined with a non-GFDL document, such as the CC-BY-SA images. Images aside, the textual components of this website form a single work under the GFDL. Combinations of multiple GFDL documents form a "collection", which is in itself a new single GFDL work with the caveat that that individual sections can be removed with their individual invariant sections. Since Wikibooks is released with no invariant sections, that distinction is moot. You say that pages outside of books could be considered a single work, but you are making the arbitrary distinction that some pages are "in" a book, and some are "not in" it. This is just an artifact of our naming convention, that pages are named so that they appear to have a hierarchical relationship with other similarly named pages. However, all such naming schemes share a common root, which makes the distinction of page groups as books more tenuous. Multiple pages under a single copy of the GFDL must be either a single document or a collection of documents, and without invariant sections the two are the same thing. Section 1 says "A "Modified Version" of the Document means any work containing the Document or a portion of it, either copied verbatim, or with modifications and/or translated into another language.", that is any "work" (not "document") is considered a single "modified version" if it contains the document. In short, the Wikibooks website represents a single modified version containing all pages. QED. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see this as a game, we aren't competing (at least I didn't sign in for that) at best we are challenging each others views on the subject and I'm taking something from it, knowledge in general and better understanding about your side of the problem, I already have a good understanding on your stance in several points so this exercise is useful if not to you to me and if we reach a conclusion maybe even to the first poster and community.
I start by agreeing that what I said about the name is my interpretation and is as valid as yours. I agree also to what you said about the project conception, but on the scope and objectives the project is very different from the others probably the only one closely related would be WikiSource, it would be funny to have this discussion there :)
For what I understand you have "changed you view" or at least modified it a bit so to admit that for you (lets keep the universe reduced to you and me to be easier to address each side) can now accept that Wikibooks is an aggregate of works (even considering that you now do it because of the different licenses used on the images); We can even say that this was you viewpoint from the start and that "This website represents a single "work" " was a generalization of that concept. Hope I got this supposition right, this will reduce a bit my objection but I will continue on disagreeing with you and will address this as you position so far.
Ok, from that new insight I can agree and confirm that I'm in concordance with that general view in part but still think a single license doesn't cover all (lets say all GFDL) content on Wikibooks. Why? Because to your extra considerations to images with a different licensee, I add that each book also has it's own license and licenser, that it is not as generic as the one that covers all the site (this can be challenged in part and probably we will not reach a conclusion because of the submit clause, in any case the namespace were the submission is being made could serve to enforce my side but lets skip that discussion), beyond that, you forget that several works/pages don't have the submitter as author or copyright holder, and even if not using the GFDL (in the original form) no violation is being made by the contributor that is in fact relicensing a work (lets consider only valid works with proper licenses, remember that GFDL is a license for distribution). As support to this view and if we are using the aggregate definition we can read on the GFDL "When the Document is included in an aggregate, this License does not apply to the other works in the aggregate which are not themselves derivative works of the Document.", it seems to be clear to me that each work can't be considered a derivate of the hole site (or even vice versa if we go that far), they are self contained, right holders and content, more each work should have it's own license were the copyright holders grants the contribution under the GFDL license (again the submit clause), and there is the problem of attribution. For instance, to use content from Wikipedia we must give attribution to it in each work that uses content from it (now we use mostly transwiki to solve the problem, I also disagree with using this option skipping the attribution), but each book must give attribution specific and relating only to that single work, referencing also specific extra parts that may have rights on the work and specifically indicating their agreement to license it under the GFDL, this points so far may prove to you that all works should be considered an aggregated work and that the site wide license doesn't apply to those documents, I could point other subtilities that would further advance my view (but would probably raise problems in other areas), as I know you will adamantly defend the submit button I remind you just one more point, most of us Wikibookians are anonymous contributors...
As for the project name :) I only gave you that fact because it fits to what I'm stating (as we were talking about facts and both side miss them), and I still like that example...
I don't disagree that most pages on the site may be considered a "collection" when not part of a book (I gave you several reasons why this should be so and agree that what I'm defending doesn't apply to any other page not even talk pages on the books), I know that you have several other concepts that collide with mine (history pages, authors and others not related to this subject), and all the examples I gave you skip most of that minefield...
If your response is to address the submit clause then the little examples I gave should suffice but even you can grant me that the legalities of such clause is shaky and that it's use is more for protection than anything else, but if you wish to extend the discussion into that (I remember we had also a discussion about that and if my memory doesn't fail you agreed or didn't objected to this understanding)...
In any case, to recenter the discussion, we are only in disagreement here about the view of a site wide license that could substitute every other license (GFDL) or not, that each book "may" need it's own license and must have it on the print version. --Panic 04:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
IANAL, but I think that this issue is best resolved by looking directly at the text of the license itself:
You may make a collection consisting of the Document and other documents released under this License, and replace the individual copies of this License in the various documents with a single copy that is included in the collection, provided that you follow the rules of this License for verbatim copying of each of the documents in all other respects.
I think that the Wikibooks project would fall under this category. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
None of us are lawyers (AFAIK) and I doubt one would be willing to make an opinion on the GFDL licensing problem as the license was "tweaked" (so to avoid the abused word :) to cover our (project) specific needs and the evolution of the medium we use.
In any case WK covered the distinction about collection and aggregate (we can have a mix of documents under several setups), the only important distinctions is with the specific requirements (not the Invariant Sections as WK has pointed out since our GFDL is extended to avoid it), licenser mention, attributions etc...
If you take it to a very basic level it is about if every page is a module under the site wide license (rights attribution), and that that suffices for all pages. In other words that stuff like this C++ Programming/Authors should not only be avoided but completely unnecessary as serving no purpose legally (WK opposition here at this point doesn't cover the moral side or contributors liberty to add such things). --Panic 05:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The GFDL is not extended to avoid it or otherwise "tweaked". Wikibooks' Copyright page states only that anyone submitted works to Wikibooks must agree to allow Wikibooks to use it without no invariant sections and no front cover text, as a requirement that must be agreed to before clicking the submit button in order to be used here. It is not listed as a requirement that must be accepted when used, modified elsewhere, or redistributed, regardless if done so on the internet or in print. In both cases it tells you to read the GFDL link for specifics, which does include information on having invariant sections and front cover text.
Anyone is free to include an authors or contributors section, although it should be avoided. However it does serve no legal purpose from the stand point of the Wikimedia Foundation and anyone is free to add there name to it. Wikibooks clearly defines for internet use "linking back" to the book or module being used, modified or redistributed as being enough to satisfy the author requirements of the GFDL license. I think the Wikimedia Foundation stance on hard copy is its up to the person who wants to use, modify or redistribute works of any project to determine the appropriate steps necessary to properly attribute authors/copyright holders based on their local laws, and not the responsibility of any contributors to the Wikimedia projects. I think that makes perfect sense, since laws can vary by country and jurisdiction and only someone familiar with local laws has a good chance of determine who meet those requirements appropriately. None of us are lawyers and even if we were, thats no guarantee that such a person knows the current laws that apply for every place in the world. The responsibility is the person wishing to use, modify and redistribute the works, not Wikibooks or any of its contributors as a whole. --darklama 14:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
The fact is that the GFDL had to have some exceptions added (therefore tweaked), and is common knowledge that if it could be replaced it probably would. (other examples of the problem can be learned by studding the need for multiple licensing or comparing it to similar licenses).
Once you license the work under the GFDL with the additions any subsequent version would have to comply to it. Do I understand correctly and you are stating that the exceptions are only valid on Wikibooks ?!?
We have addressed this "anyone is free to include an authors or contributors section" and this is not the issue here. An author is not the same as contributors the distinction has to do about rights ownership not all edits grant you ownership of the contributions and there is a problem of quantity/quality of what constitutes a significant change, this is common knowledge for software developers...
The location of the rights (jurisdiction) are clearly stated, the one that applies here is the location of the server, and I disagree with you on some points further for instance if someone abused the site wide license how would you address it (the submit clause doesn't transmit copyrights to Wikimedia, it only licenses the work under the GFDL to Wikimedia if you go to FSF we can clearly read that only the owner of the copyright can defend the abuse) ? --Panic 16:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's another point where you are stubbornly wrong, panic. Every person who makes any edit holds copyright over that edit. There is no quantitative nor qualitative distinction what-so-ever between a contributor, an editor, an author or a rights-holder on this project. The GFDL makes no such distinction, the Wikibooks:Copyrights page makes no such distinction. It is a figment of your imagination, and unless you can show us the magical hiding-place where this information is living, you need to give it a break. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:45, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I know you also disagree but lets skip that point for now, if we start mixing it all up we will not ever find a point of consensus were we can build up, since you extended a bit I will also defend a bit my view so third parties can understand our view points (or disagree completely with them). In any case this part is not covered by the license we use by the copyright law in general and specifically on the state the server resides (as I told Darklama), the GFDL concern with this part is minimum as it doesn't deal with copyrights but only on the specific right for distribution.
The view that each edit creates it's copyright and can claim part authorship of a work is flawed in the sense that is self evident that not all edits are contributions (error correction, spelling, reorganization or restructuring of the work etc), and the copyright law stipulates clearly what constitutes a copyrightable change to a work (derivation) and defines the creator of the work (I will not discuss copyright law with you as I think it's pretty evident and if you have problems with it it you should consider carefully your actions, counsels on that field, but again in this respect you have already been challenged and one of the persons talking to you claimed to understand and have a particular relation to the law, and I to am pretty much informed on my local copyright law, European Community discussions and plans. Not only by formation but as a programmer and due to my personal interest on P2P). --Panic 19:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes you understand that part correctly, the exception is only valid to works submitted to Wikibooks while it remains on Wikibooks. That exception exists only to insure that all works located on Wikibooks are free to be used, modified and redistributed. Cover text and the invariant sections can have all rights reserved, unlike the rest of a GFDL document, which is not wanted on Wikibooks. As soon as you use, modify or redistribute it off of Wikibooks anyone is free to add cover text and invariant sections to the book which have all rights reserved or have different licensing terms.
Any distinctions if one exists is dependent on locally applied laws, which may include giving jurisdiction to some other country. Not all places are so willing to give jurisdiction to some other country. Its incorrect to assume US laws, Florida or International Laws apply everywhere. If someone abuses the site wide license thats between any concerned parties and whatever laws apply in there location and not Wikimedia nor Wikibooks. You may be very well be interested in a recent case in which someone tried to sue the Wikimedia Foundation for copyright infringement and lost. Wikibooks is just a provider with policies to follow, and enforces local policies, any issues concerning copyright infringement is between the accuser and the accused and has nothing to do with Wikibooks or its location. The case did not take place in the US and did not require considering US copyright laws, Florida copyright laws, nor International copyright laws as you would have us believe must be done. --darklama 21:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

I disagree with that version and even presume that WK will also disagree with it, after licensing the work or initiating it under it that license will be completely irrevocable "Once a license has been granted to Wikibooks for material, an author may not revoke or alter that license." (even if we use the site wide view), only the copyright owners can relicense it under a different setup. (I remember you again that the GFDL doesn't cover ownership only distribution, for instance even if we use the site wide view, Wikimedia can't relicense the works under an incompatible license without contacting and getting consent from the right owners). --Panic 23:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Feedback for Manx

Hello! Before I continue on with my Manx book, I want to make sure that everything can be geared and appropriate to all levels of learning. Please view: Manx Lesson 1 and any other parts of the book that are done at the moment. I'd like to see what everyone thinks of it, the level or teaching, format, and so on so I can better this book before I start using lessons as a generalised template for my other chapters and Language books. (By the way, Manx is the language spoken on the Isle of Man). ^^ --Girdi 20:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

As a fellow Manxie I love this idea. I've helped develop many of the language books and one thing that would greatly help any of our books would be some kind of pronunciation guide especially if you can make audio files to help pronunciation further. I think the Spanish and German Wikibooks have audio files for listening and pronunciation practice.
Wow, you are Manx? I am not Manx unfortunately, but I like how you think of me as a fellow Manx. Haha. So yeah, I was planning on working on audio files eventually after I complete the written lessons. Do you speak Manx? --Girdi 05:13, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New to wikibooks

Hello everyone. I am new to wikibooks. I look forward to browsing the site. My name is Shannon Horn. I am in a introduction to teaching class.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shannon h82 (talk • contribs) .

New User

Hello! I am also new to wikibooks. I wish to explain that I did not introduce a new page under the name of another user. The page(s), which was lifted bodily from my website Quest for Atlantis, has been on wikibooks for several years and was woefully out of date. I assumed, since I am the real author, that I could bring it up to date so that it would match the corresponding page on my website. Is this Ok? It will be awhile before I can learn all the rules for introducing a new page myself.Firecircle 06:05, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello from newbie!

Hello there, following a welcome from User:Mike.lifeguard, I've been encouraged to pop in here and say hello! I am in the process on writing a book explaining the basics of Building Services, well actually I've literally just started it. I have found very little info on the internet about the subject so intend to do something about that!

I'm fine with writing the text but I need a bit of help with putting the book together and naming conventions etc. Can somebody please tell me in layman's terms the following:

1. I want to create a new page (module) so I create a link with the title of it in the page it is going to come from then click on that link to go to editing the new page but what should it be called to comply with the naming conventions? Say I have a chapter called 'ventilation' and I want to create two modules: 'natural ventilation' and 'mechanical ventilation' with links from the chapter intro page.

2. What about the chapter intro pages? What should they be called?

The naming conventions page just confuses me further! If anyone has any tips for putting this book together, that would be great. Thanks.

GaryReggae 12:11, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gary! welcome to Wikibooks! I've been following some of your progress, and your book looks like it's off to a great start. You may be interested in reading some or all of Using Wikibooks, a book that we are in the process of writing to try and explain some of these details. Specifically, the page on Book Structures trys to cover some of the naming convention issues (although admittedly it's still a short rough draft). To try and answer your question directly, You name pages using a forward-slash, such as "Book name/Chapter/Page". In your case, you would have pages named:
If you wanted to have a page that serves as an introduction to the chapter, you could do it at Building Services/Ventilation, or you could do it at Building Services/Ventilation/Introduction. I hope this answers your question, if you have any more just let us know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, brilliant, I thought that was kind of the case, hence the fact some of the names you suggested as links work. How do I actually rename a page once it has been created? Also, what should I call the main page of the book, ie where the intro and TOC are? At the moment it's just 'Building Services' with nothing in front of or after it, is that right? I'll just have the intro to each chapter on the 'home page' for that chapter, ie Building Services/Ventilation. Hopefully I'll write another chapter or two this evening.
Next question, I'd like to make the book look a bit more interesting with some images but I don't really have many suitable photos or opportunities to take any and I know it is not a good idea to use photos from external sites. Do you know of a good source of free images I could use? Otherwise I'll just have to get Google Sketchup out and draw some models and take screenshots of them.
Thanks,
Gary GaryReggae 13:47, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a move tab at the top of the page. Just hit that, enter the new name, and click the button. You can't move a page to a name already in existence (but an admin could if you ever need that done). Building Services is a good spot to have the intro and a TOC. If you want to give the book a cover you can do that at Building Services/Cover for example. The main page (the top of the hierarchy) is also the page you want to categorize with {{Subject}}. So you can keep track of all the pages in the book easily, you can categorize them all with Category:Building Services. So that last category keeps all the pages of the book together, and the {{Subject}} template on the main page lets the book show up in Subject: pages, for example.
Commons has tons of free images that you can use here. There's no need to upload the images locally, just use the same image syntax as you normally would; the software will search on Commons if the image isn't located here. Hope that helps. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 16:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Great, thanks, I'll have a look at the Commons and all the other tips as well. GaryReggae 19:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of external links

Hi there, I am a big user of wikipedia and just found Wikibooks. Found the Study_Guides:Microsoft_Certified_Professional_Developer_MCPD\CExam_70-536 book, which is fine because I am studying for that certification :-) A question thow, there seems to be MANY pages associated with this book, most of them with only external links (no specific article). How should those kinds of links be arranged?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacques Bergeron (talk • contribs) 04:36, November 17, 2007.

I don't know about that book in particular, but if there are pages which consist solely of external links, t