Wikibooks:Reading room/General

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

ArchivesReading rooms

Assistance	Discussions	Requests	Proposals
General | Technical | Administrative (Usurps/Renaming)	General | Projects	Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Features	Featured books | Policies/Guidelines

Contents 1 FlaggedRevs Icon 2 Simple English Wikibooks' books? 3 CAN ONE "FORWARD" INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA INTO THE GERMANE WIKIBOOK SECTIONS? 4 copyvio tagging regarding Wikipedia (in particular) 5 PDF versions of featured books

Shortcut: WB:SLC WB:CHAT WB:RR/G Welcome to the General reading room. On this page, Wikibookians are free to talk about the Wikibooks project, and all sorts of related subjects. Post a comment Please title your request and sign your name and date (by adding four tildes thus: ~~~~. General References: Reference works to use to build books Public domain and fair use Newest Books ++C Badminton Preparing for the TExES 193 Exam Labor Saving Practices on Small Organic Vegetable Farms Louisiana French Online Dating Digital Astrophotography Organic Business Guide Handbook of Management Scales 2009 UIL Spelling Study Manual History of Western Theatre: Greeks to Elizabethans Biological Physics Arithmetics Japanese Immersion XSLTForms Question Writer Tracker Manual Project Euler: Mathematica, F Sharp companion Open Source Music Guide Digital Integrated Circuits Easy Japanese Guide to Internet Culture GCSE Computing Random Processes in Communication and Control Social Networking RCA Open Source Application: ROSA Manual Standard ML Programming The Complete Encyclopedia of Self-Help Techniques The Prince New Zealand's Search for Security 1945-1985 An Imaging Guide to Mars Historical Rhetorics Strategy for Information Markets International English Language Testing System Aramaic Linux For Users When It Hits the Fan Lojban Made Easy start a book • suggest a book

[edit] FlaggedRevs Icon

Has anybody noticed that the FlaggedRevs icons (the little icons that say "Current revision" or "Sighted Page" on the top-right) are wrecking havoc on a very large amount of Wikibooks pages, including the Main Page and all cookbook pages using the correct templates? Is there anyway to fix this, by moving the icons somewhere else? --Yair rand (talk) 06:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed, but I see what you mean. As I use a widescreen display it doesn't actually break the format having the icon there. I guess it could be moved, any suggestions as to where would work better? Unusual? Quite ^TalkQu 12:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Having been using the detailed stable version user interface as selected under Stability in my preferences, I instead get a horizontal bar that extends across the width of the page and pushes the content down evenly without breaking formatting. Switching to the simple version I see what you mean. Potentially the detailed interface could be made the default? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 12:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see at Wikibooks:FlaggedRevs Extension that $wgSimpleFlaggedRevsUI is already set to false so that doesn't affect it. However, comparing the simple interface option in preferences here with that at the FlaggedRevs test wiki, I notice that the content of the interface is slightly different. I was going to say that theirs allows the page content to flow under the icons in the simple interface, but on, for example, Cookbook:Gluten-Free, I see that page content flows around it here as well. I think it's only certain page formatting that clashes with the interface. Switching to the detailed interface in your preferences is a workaround for now then. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You could probably fix that by adding <br style="clear:both"/> to the top of the pages in question. Bawolff (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Added clear:both to the style on the table of the main page. Thanks. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] Simple English Wikibooks' books?

As the Simple English Wikibooks is due to be closed (the vote for its nuking was lost about half a year ago but it still hasn't had its plug pulled) what will happen to the 429 books which are presently there? Can space be made on English Wikibooks for this? Seems a waste to simply delete it all especially as people worked really hard - most of those who voted for its elimination don't contribute to Simple English projects (as far as I can see) and although the SE Wikibooks users were notified unfortunately SE Wikipedia users weren't as aware that there was a vote going on to kill off its sister project.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry the vote started half a year ago but whoever chose to say that the vote was over only did so today. vote I'd urge anyone who has contributed to Simple English projects to add their opinions to this charade vote.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:41, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have cross-posted this thread to the site notice at Simple. Microchip08 ^@simple 23:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm still holding onto optimism that it won't happen. I thought I came across a policy on project closures awhile ago that required more than support for a project to be closed. Like if there is activity in last 30 days the closure won't happen. That shows there is consensus that the project is still considered useful. Maybe I'm just wishful thinking, I can't seem to find the policy in question now. Could be why the project was never closed though. --darklama 00:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

An option is to create a Simple namespace here (through a bug report and via a pseudo-namespace beforehand) and importing the pages at simple.wikibooks via Special:Import, preserving full edit history. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 01:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The transfer can and should be done server-side; open a bug for that. I forget which maintenance script it is, but JeLuF knows for sure, and it should be easy to figure out in any event.  — Mike.lifeguard | ^talk 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to remind everyone here that the reason Simple English Wikibooks is being closed is due to long-term inactivity and that Simple English is not defined as a real language. Also there is a bug request that has been already filed. (#22103) The discussion at meta was closed after consensus was leaning in favor for closing the project. I hope that clears any confusion here. Thanks, Slipknot1 (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a language, it is an undefined language. The bug is to 'close', not 'delete'; we can still talk about options here. Regards, Microchip08 ^@simple 13:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange. Wiki foundation obviously thought it was a 'language' when they initially approved the project but as per 1984 they make the decisions and change history and we just accept that it's not a language now nor never has been. Most closed projects at least have hope for the future as demand may open the project again in the future but with this project because of Wiki foundation deciding that there'll be no more Simple wikis there is no future. That's why this vote was different to the other votes for closing of a project.--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As per the new language rule at meta, simple language projects are hereby banned (except for SEWP and SEWKT). Once simple wikibooks is closed, it cannot be reopened, ever. Also I find it weird why this project would want to have a simple wikibooks subproject. It is the English Wikibooks, not Simple English for crying out loud. Additionally it would be out of scope for a Wikimedia project. The contents at simple wikibooks are a mess and in inferior quality, and I doubt anything could be gained or benefited from importing. Why shoot yourself in the foot? Slipknot1 (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

We've already polluted Wikibooks' scope with the Cookbook. We have Wikijunior which targets a sub-section of the total English speaking audience, namely children. A Simple namespace and content targets a sub-section of the total English speaking audience as well, namely those for whom it is not a first language. I view Simple English as a subset of English, not something that is mutually exclusive. See w:Special English, one of the dialects of English. That's where my perspective is coming from. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 14:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Polluted? Just because some of the content of this project isn't about computers or science doesn't make it out of place. The more the merrier. Wikibooks needs to grow and it needs to expand its remit from technical and computer related topics. The Cookbook is the best example of what Wikibooks can do.--ЗAНИA ^talk 21:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not a textbook in my view, which is what Wikibooks is supposed to be about. Potentially it may have begun as a book on teaching cooking techniques, but now it's a collection of recipes, many of which may be pulled from a copyrighted cookbook somewhere. If you want recipes, you can go to foodnetwork.com. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 22:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Foodnetwork.com is not suitable because it is an American website (written purely for Americans because of its use of imperial measurements [ounces, cups, etc.]) and it is a commercial website. I avoid commercial websites like the plague as commercial entities have one aim only: profit.--ЗAНИA ^talk 23:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO, English Wikibooks is and should be an open-content textbook collection written in the English language. I don't care if you want to start your own cookbook as long as it is in proper English, but combining simple wikibooks to here is like trying to kill this project as well. Other wikimedia projects like Wikitionary for example, don't target for a specific audience or demographic. They serve to be a free, online English-language dictionary. Anyways regardless of whether content from simple wikibooks is transferred here, I doubt that simple wb can be reopened. Also the whole purpose for the closure discussion at meta was to decide by consensus whether the project should be closed. A firm consensus supported closure. Importing content here is like trying to have simple wikibooks cheat its closure. Slipknot1 (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

As many have mentioned, there are different levels of English. Our inclusion criteria require content for an English audience, but we allow different books to be written to different audiences (even parallel books on the same topic). This won't harm English Wikibooks at all. The Simple English Wikibooks content is a drop in the ocean.

It does hurt Wikibooks to be so fragmented into books whereas Wiktionary and other projects are essentially huge, single books. But Wikibooks is more than an informational resource; it is an educational resource. Requiring each book to cater to a broad audience would hurt the project. --Swift (talk) 14:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug 22106 filed, depends on 22103. Could be done by hand even if developers opt out and regardless of discussion at Meta. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 13:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bug closed; premature and lacking community support. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 05:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Set up a page at Wikibooks:Simple English merger to organise the cleanup following the merge. --Swift (talk) 01:36, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If people are willing to put the effort in, we should import then merge / adopt / delete based on the current WB policies. This is no different to someone importing a WP article as the basis for a book, merging some of the content then deleting the rest (i.e., the original Transwiki namespace import). Surely we can use Subjects or Categories or Bookshelves to present appropriate material to appropriate audiences? A "simple" bookshelf or subject, but not called "simple".. "Books for those with a level X command of English" for example. As for the Cookbook - a course on cookery would include recipes as examples to practice out the techniques, and the Cookbook does contain technique and tool pages too. Perhaps it is just structural wrong and lacks the overlay to present it to the reader as an instructional guide rather than a recipe book. I can be salvaged I'm sure. QU ^TalkQu 14:29, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] CAN ONE "FORWARD" INFORMATION FROM WIKIPEDIA INTO THE GERMANE WIKIBOOK SECTIONS?

Hello, my ID is Plutophanes, I contribute to Wikipedia and I beleive that the WMF Open Knowledge Base is an important step in educational evolution. Perhaps on the Top Ten along with the printing press! I have multiple degrees ( all information is available on my user page in Wikipedia under the same username ) and work as a Behaviour Analyst ( a discipline deeply interwoven with learning theory- leaning on the Behavioural theory of learning but requiring a graduate-level understanding of Constructivism and Post-Modern learning theories) and as a Junior Statistician at a research firm and live as a Contemporary-Music Composer with diplomas, awards and top Conservatory associations.

My question is: Can we copy & paste information on a subject from Wikipedia to Wikibooks, if: a) The license for the Wiki allows for such a reproduction and dissemination? b) We have enough knowledge of the subject to make judicious and informative decisions?

This seems to me an exigent question- it may be answered somewhere within the labyrinth but I have not found it yet. Please respond to me in this arena, or as a PM to my username, or to my Wikipedia account. Thank you all for your hard and noble work!!!

Plutophanes (talk) 18:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. See WB:RFI. --Swift (talk) 19:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] copyvio tagging regarding Wikipedia (in particular)

I recently noticed a copyvio tag on a small bit of content that was duplicated from Wikipedia, that in itself seemed weird, because there are many of reasons against doing so and not a single justifiable merit of putting usable content in the death row that the copyvio tag has been turned into recently...
The particular event in itself is not of major importance, the low quantity of content almost prevented me to bring this to a brother discussion, in any case what I'm opposed is to the practice.
In as fewer words as I can condense it. I proceeded by reverting the tagged page to the previous version (the initial contributor was anonymous), made some simple changes to the wording to conform to the topic at hand (since the original article was differently focused) and fixed the wikilinks, then informed the tagger with a smaller rational behind my action and opened myself to discuss the issue if he disagreed with me, that particular issue was then "resolved" by the tagger by re-tagging the page as to enforce his initial action, this is in it self a bad outcome, as the quicker outcome would be a reversing war and by disregarding my opposition to the initial action it raised the bar to have it broadly analyzed.
The first point and one I have already raised some attention before is that the copyvio tag was edited to confer the tagged content a validity of 7 days, this without any approval from the community and deeply changing the process how we deal with copyright violations. The addition of this limit (probably based on the general notion that 7 days is a significant delay to get an outcome) is extremely shortsighted and permits removal of unique content without due process of verification, since the copyvio to my knowledge has never been used by a copyright owner to have his content removed but solely as a preemptively step to protect the project against suspected violation of the copyright of others, in this case we act as presuming the contributor guilty and put on him the burden of proving the accuser wrong, this may seem as a simple way to address the issue but step back and analise all the implication, consider the havoc this could snowball into. But my main concern in this is that 7 days aren't enough, this is the minimum time-frame we accept for decisions, in this cases it isn't helping anyone working toward benefiting the project and we should assume that the contributor did have a good motivation behind the contribution.
The second issue is that not all content is copyrightable, people using the copyvio tag should understand this. Facts, measurements, quantities, and simple descriptions (architectural works were only recognized as copyrightable in the US in 1990), small phrases, formating edits, spell corrections any thing that doesn't consist in a substantial literary expression isn't copyrightable (this should be generally valid worldwide). This is how we can have projects like Wikipedia and Wikinews (disregarding other legalities).
The rational to require attribution of other Wikimedia projects, especially inside the Wikimedia ecosystem, should not be used to scare off users and prevent useful evolution of the projects, the need for attribution is extremely important outside of Wikimedia but not as important inside due to the way work is done and how it is done (this could be further explored if people don't understand it), consider simple the simple fact that it was not always possible to preserve edit histories...
The last issue is that tagging copied content from other Wikimedia projects (or even other repositories that are clearly compatible in licensing to Wikibooks). By tagging this type of content in such a way, one is simply promoting deletion, this is shortsighted, if we already know the content can be used, then the only conflict is attribution. Why not fix it by an edit of your own if it annoys you, add the attribution or transwiki the content, don't annoy other users (not only the editor that put the content, but every reader) that probably don't even understand the issue. If you have the time to educate do so, if not just ignore it. If the copyright owner has a problem it would be easily fixed it will not be as problematic as using prohibitive content (the reason why preemptive action is needed on those cases). So please avoid tagging usable content as copyvio at least until people remove the 7 days limit if for no other reason. --Panic (talk) 04:13, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks like me. For those scratching their heads, wondering what triggered this: I tagged a module about a week ago along with a bunch of others over at Physics Course for copying content over from Wikipedia. The contributor was naturally notified and directed to WB:RFI. Yesterday, Panic2k4 removes the tag without an edit summary but a note on my talk page. I responded before re-addeding the tag. That tag was later removed by the module contributor. I reverted and warned the user.

Panic2k4, no-one ignored you. You didn't show how the content was anything but a violation of Wikipedia's license and so I re-added the tag. Copyvios don't get a pass just because they're "usable". --Swift (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

What part of what I say above you don't understand this time?

The copyvio tag is abusive in these instances, especially since it now "imposes" a deadline of seven days. If you are indeed attempting to solve the issue, I've now explained why tagging with the copyvio is a bad approach and you still haven't put forward a good reason to continue to do so. In any case what irked me personally regarding that event was your "reversion" of my "reversion", again not cool especially because of past events regarding reversions and you being aware that I'm always open for dialog, that for me was perceived as heavy-handed and intentional...

Just for the record my action concerned just that page (and that content). I've now become aware that the user in question did similar actions on other pages (of the same project at least) and recently in what I see as an attempted resolve the copyvio tags have reworded the content so tagged, again this is as extremely bad example on how to pressure users to comply with best our practices and my rational above continues to be valid, even if the user is working in bad faith, what I still don't believe. You could have fixed it easily (even more being an admin), or just ignored it, time in this cases is not of importance. Exacerbating the copyright issue in the present way is abusive even on the expectations most contributors to Wikipedia place on the work they do, in any case the content you tagged on that particular page wasn't copyrightable. But as I said the event itself is a frivolity what I'm attempting to address is the practices not the event as no content was really lost. --Panic (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I "fixed" one of the Physics Course modules that was tagged by importing w:Electromagnetic spectrum, deleteing the module here, moving the imported page onto the deleted module then making some changes to make it look like a book. I could have done these for all of them but I was busy doing other stuff. I agree in principle a copyvio is the wrong tag for this kind of problem, but we don't have the huge array of tags WP has and nor, I would argue, do we need them. With such a small number of admins most come across most types of "problem" at some point and are therefore able to deal with it appropriately. By this I mean, for example, at WP you have admins who only deal with image deletions and wouldn't have a clue about how to investigate a textuxal copyvio or what the rules are - that shouldn't happen here. Personally I only tag for copyvio on a clearcut copyright violation and I actually think it should be deleted immediately, not in seven days. Where someone has clearly copy / paste text, from another site (in some cases they even give the URL) that has an incompatible license I think it should be deleted straight away. More generally I'd say we could do with a beefing up of some of the guides to what is and isn't acceptable (both for the use of contributors and admins). QU ^TalkQu 08:59, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

My opinion is that the copyvio works for reporting suspected violations or those needing confirmation. Copyright owners wishing to have content removed should just ask for administrative action, they will then be informed on how to proceed from there (verification of claims). In the particular cases I point out above (compatible licensing but failing to give acknowledgment and other easy fixable issues) the copyvio tag should not be used and the issue could even be ignored (not good, but no real damage is being done, we don't have to be preemptive).

I rarely used the tag and only use when I don't see an easy fix (even yesterday I tagged one page and it was immediately deleted, no 7 days waiting for resolution). Even so one should step back and see that if all participants are in good faith it could be beneficial for the project to provide some more time (there should be a balance between the risk of contamination and the time given, the tag itself could be rewritten to include a clear warning not to copy content from that page), since if contacted the copyright owner could possibly agree to licensing the content. I have been successful in getting content for Wikibooks in that way several times. It must be carefully pondered up, the thing with the 7 days is plainly bad thinking and it changed policy (the deletion policy, the copyright page doesn't mention any time limitation) without validation from the community. --Panic (talk) 09:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right, QU. Copyvios should be deleted on the spot. I guess I was trying to be more accommodating but the content needs to be deleted at some point and so one might as well do it right away and let a nice note to the contributor do. I also agree that we need to put some of our best common practices down in writing somewhere. --Swift (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be extremely worried if that was turned into practice but wouldn't attempt to block the change of procedure if the community sees it as beneficial (I doubt that many would agree with it). The only thing I would require is that some form of log would be kept on the deletions made under this presumption of guilt. This log would have to include at least the page(s) deleted, word count, presumable source and acting admin.

The risk of contaminating free content would be eliminated completely (that is the only advantage). On the other hand it would also increase the level or errors and the need to undelete content and not all copyright violations are equal, as the examples I give above, and why this discussion was initiated and even other more complex issues, for instance the C++ Programming book was at a time tagged as a copyvio with several admins promoting deletion, so I'm extremely critical of trusting the common sense of others, to act preemptively, probably unilaterally on such issues.

We should protect the project but within reason, we aren't required to volunteer our work protecting other peoples interests in detriment of the evolution of the project, even more because our content is highly volatile and ever changing an issue today has an high probability of not being an issue tomorrow... --Panic (talk) 04:21, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been looking for more information on the several issues raised on this discussion, and others that have occurred on similar issues covering the issue of copyvio on viable content (but not attributed), pros and cons and deletions in general. One interesting page for the posts and views expressed is meta:Deletion management redesign (historical page). I've several ideas for proposals to make the proceedings more transparent to the community and more protective against unneeded deletions. One issue that I found strange is that there isn't a way to search the Special logs for the comments (in this case I was specially interested on the Special:Log/delete). For example to check all deletions with a copyvio comment (probably not all the copyvio deletion but most of them) I would have to compile all the logs from Wikibookians with sysop flags since the start of the project and search on the results (only practical with a script). Is there a workaround ? Or has anyone already done any work on such a script? --Panic (talk) 10:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

[edit] PDF versions of featured books

Some featured books have quite nice PDF versions, but they are generally about 3 years old now and I think this creates a bad impression. Perhaps we should consider making the PDF versions a bit less prominent if they get too long in the tooth.

The PDF versions I have seen were created by users who seem inactive now, but I think the books have generally continued to progress, if not at the original pace. Has the knowledge of how to do this been forgotten, or was it though to be too much hard work for the value of the final result? The OpenOffice template by Hagindaz talks about pasting in text under each level 5 heading, which seems like a marathon task for the longer books.

I know you can download a PDF version which is made automatically, but these lack pagination and are generally less polished. If it were possible for the system-generated PDF to start each module on a new page, I think that would be a worthwhile improvement. Recent Runes (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That would be nice. A book on how to make well polished PDF books out of wiki-based books would also be nice. --darklama 18:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The help pages for polishing are Help:Collections for the PDF-generation and Help:Print versions for the print versions. The problem with the PDF-generation is that advanced polishing would consist of finding work-a-rounds for all the formatting errors of the PDF-generation (however, these formatting errors change as long as the PDF-generation is under development). Polishing print versions requires quite some work. After I started with the {{Newpage}} template, I realized that I want to adjust the automatic page breaks to avoid page breaks right after section headings. I did this by including an empty-line template that I only "activate" (by editing it) for printing. (This empty-line template makes only sense for the specific paper format and font size that I'm using for printing; thus, it should usually be deactivated. A better solution could be based on {{Page-break}} but the required functionality is not supported by many browsers.) Once I had page numbers, I also wanted to have the page numbers in a table of contents. I'm doing this now by including the page numbers manually. (You can see the results here.) Overall, I'm not happy with the process. Therefore, I never included my approach in the help pages. --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

A book is much more in depth than any help page. Wikibooks has Using Wikibooks and Editing Wikitext for example. I was thinking of something along the lines of how to generate PDFs with OpenOffice and other programs, how to edit PDFs, various techniques that people have found useful for polishing and improving the quality of PDFs, and the advantages, disadvantages, limitations, problems, and work arounds encountered when using each program for making PDFs. Such a book could be useful for helping people to understand how they too can make quality PDFs, and help people decide which program to use. --darklama 12:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's possible to use templates to create page breaks when printing from the browser, then print the print version to a software printer that converts it to a PDF. However that suffers from requiring manual updating. The system-generated PDF does add in page breaks for new chapters (lines in the collection with a semicolon) but not for individual pages (lines in the collection starting with a colon). It seems like it would be an easy tweak but it would take some time for it to be made since few projects other than Wikibooks use this feature. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

A print version page in the French book contains: =Information= {{:French/Lessons/Introductory}} =Lesson 0.01 - Introduction= {{:French/Lessons/Introduction}} =Lesson 0.02 - Learning French= {{:French/Lessons/Learning French}} (shown here without its line-feeds). Are you saying that page breaks can be added between the lessons here, to format the overall print version? Recent Runes (talk) 20:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can use {{newpage}} for print version page breaks. That works only for printing, not for PDF generation. Unless you "print" to a PDF, which has to be redone every time an edit is made to any page of the book. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 20:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've managed to produce a PDF of French by printing from Firefox to postscript then using the ps2pdf command in Linux. I was thinking of uploading the file, but I seem to be directed to Commons rather than Wikibooks which is where the old versions are. Are books stored in Commons now? Recent Runes (talk) 18:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. --Martin Kraus (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I uploaded the PDF file to Commons, but the link to the book French still points to the old description page. Do all the old PDF files need to be transferred to Commons and the local copies need to be deleted? Recent Runes (talk) 22:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should have gone to the file page and clicked on "upload a new version of this file". You can still upload new versions of existing files locally. Please note where the new file is so we can delete the one here with a link to the new file in the deletion log and so we can fix the link to the PDF in the book. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 02:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I can't see the "upload a new version of this file" option on the Media:French.pdf page. The only option seems to be "Upload file" which takes me to Commons, so I don't seem to have any ability to upload PDF files to Wikibooks. Recent Runes (talk) 16:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Would it be because you're accessing the file directly via Media:French.pdf, rather than the description page at File:French.pdf? If you still can't do it from the latter page, what does it say when you try it directly? -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 03:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I've tested it and I also don't see the option. Direct displays the "Insufficient permissions" special page. Media:French.pdf just initiate the download... --Panic (talk) 11:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it decided some months ago that uploads should be restricted on Wikibooks? Thus, I guess the way to go is to upload the PDF to Commons and to change the links on Wikibooks appropriately. --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

When I try the direct Wikibboks link I just get the message "The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Uploaders.". Basically I don't have the ability to make a description page which shows the old and new versions, so I think I need admin assistance to help sort it out. Recent Runes (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I see the permission at Special:ListGroupRights is reupload-own, so you can only overwrite the file if you were the one who uploaded it previously. And I see you uploaded the file with the same name at Commons, so I'll just delete the local copy here and be done with this. -- Adrignola ^{talk contribs} 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If interested, you may prefer javalatex, which is mostly automatic but allows manual polish and refinement. There are also some PDF source files which can be updated. --hagindaz (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, the results you achieved in 2006/7 were very nice, but I thought I might need to spent a long time learning Latex which would distract me from other work. Also, the actual material in the French book being incomplete I thought spending a lot of time on the presentation wasn't really justified, particularly if the files mainly exist outside Wikibooks and significant rework is needed for each new PDF version. If the ordinary print version was spruced up as much as possible, then that seemed easier to carry forward into the future. Of course, if you or anyone else would like to make a smarter PDF of French then please go ahead. I just thought that it being a featured book, French should have a reasonably up-to-date PDF to show that some people still cared about it. Recent Runes (talk) 23:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)