Wikibooks:Reading room/Projects

From Wikibooks, open books for an open world
Jump to: navigation, search
Replacement filing cabinet.svgArchivesWikibooks Discussion Rooms
Discussions Assistance Requests
General | Proposals | Projects | Featured books General | Technical | Administrative Deletion | Undeletion | Import | Permissions | Renaming

Welcome to the Projects reading room. On this page, Wikibookians can talk about subjects related to books, book projects, and other tasks here on Wikibooks that require discussion and organization.


The their route was disconnected near Rion. The range of the Reps is limited, over 50. They might cooperate, but only if we provide the support for them, this is not possible at this level, but if we rebuild NEW Atlantis (beta), it's a different story, otherwise they will probably retaliate to cover their own ass. I believe they have done this 5 times. Also the reps are based at spio, they can not leave the base, but they have access to the tech, it is their source code.

New guy here; apparently here is where I say what interests me[edit]

Well, this is weird; my interests appear to be the same as Daddou einstein's (below). I'm a college student double majoring in Computer Science and Near Eastern Languages and Civilization (mainly studying Arabic). I love both topics and I really dig free information on the internet, so I'm mainly here to add what I can to flesh out the Arabic wikibook. Michaelt (discusscontribs) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to see an opensource version of Dr. Judy Wood's book "Where did the Towers go? Evidence of Directed Free-energy Technology on 9/11" ... but on wikipedia it's treated as a hoax, certainly not instructional; I think wikipedia should be required to prove that in court . Wikipaddn (discusscontribs) 04:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! & Is Darwinbots trivial?[edit]

Hello! I am XndrK, here from Wikipedia, and I am genuinely interested in helping. (Wikipedia seems to have enough, frankly, though I do some copy editing there.)

Would an introduction to w:Darwinbots be too trivial, or is it actually something to be discussed? --XndrK (discusscontribs) 21:39, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Don't really know much about that subject and the Wikipedia article has been deleted. However, the description in the deletion reasons sounds interesting. Feel free to start creating a book if you feel that it would be of interest to others!--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 00:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
If there isn't enough material for a book, a natural next question would be whether one could broaden the topic and arrive at a suitable book topic that would include it. --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 02:08, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Snakes of Europe, 'new book under development'[edit]

Import of a public domain text, from, rebuild formatting of 'academic stuff'; ie.see, this should be fully legible, but it is not now formatted for printing.
Import all species info from Wikipedia, with photos and ID tips. ie.

Here we have a new 'field guide', info book, or academic refence text. Then we can work on updating the academic work of Boulenger

Please add Snakes of Europe *note I dont use the prefix The, to differentiate from the original work* to your catalog and index pages[edit] (discusscontribs) 12:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Good title for a book on a Perl (CPAN) package?[edit]

I’m working towards a possible release of my command-line MediaWiki tools, and given that there are also other such tools which I may also decide to document at some later point, I’ve decided to broaden the topic a bit, and tentatively entitled it Command-line MediaWiki tools.

Now, however, these tools rely on the yet to be released MediaWiki::API2 CPAN package, which I wish to document on Wikibooks just as well. The difference is that, however, I have no plans on documenting any other similar packages for Perl (especially given that they seem to already have a decent documentation on their own), and thus would prefer a wikibook dedicated to this particular package only. (At the least until someone else chooses to cover the others.)

The question is: what’d be a good title for such a book? Apparently, MediaWiki::API2 Perl module is not considered a valid title by the software, MediaWiki-API2 CPAN distribution looks a bit cryptic, and something like Interfacing MediaWiki with MediaWiki::API2 from Perl is probably way too verbose.

Any suggestions?


Ivan Shmakov (dc) 10:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Help with a university project (focus on youtube)[edit]

Hi, im working on a class wiki book chapter titled online identity , and for my section i was wanting to look at YouTube as a form of social media and Online Identity. However, for our assignment we need to make reference to academic works that discuss our topics, and im having a bit of trouble finding much. If any of you could point me in the right direction that'd be a big help. EuanWhitelaw (discusscontribs) 15:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm unsure if this is the right place to introduce myself, or even if I'm doing it right[edit]

Hello! I am very unexperienced with wikipedia and I have little to no knowledge on how to do things here. I'm mainly interested in science, mathematics, and philosphy, and I contribute to wikipedia in my free time. I'm here mainly because I like contributing and learning. So if I'm doing something wrong, please let me know. MisterRogors (discuss)

Hi, MisterRogors.
A tip that may help you make sense out of things. The word you actually want there is wikimedia rather than wikipedia. That's because wikipedia is just one of several sister projects in the wikimedia family. This sister here, where we are now, is Wikibooks; we write textbooks here. Wikipedia, over there, writes encyclopedia articles. And there are other sisters too, of course: Wiktionary is a dictionary (not just of English words — it gives definitions of words in all the world's languages. Wikinews writes news articles (with its own unique challenges and rewards). And so on.
Knowing that will probably help you make more sense out of the welcome messages of the different sisters: each sister has a different welcome message, that tells you stuff about that sister, but may be a little different, or sometimes a lot different, from how things work on the other sisters. (I see you've already gotten a welcome on your user talk page here at Wikibooks. Welcome!).
(A trick to keep in mind, btw: if you sign your message with three tildes (~~~) it'll sign just your name, like your sig above; four tildes will produce your name and the time and date when you signed.) --Pi zero (discusscontribs) 10:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

North Carolina[edit]

I currently need a lot of help at the North Carolina Wikibook as I can't do it alone. StudiesWorld (discusscontribs) 22:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to help but my knowledge of this area is very weak although I could just about point to it on a map. It's a bit quiet here at present but let's hope somebody will help in the future.--ЗAНИA Flag of Estonia.svgtalk 01:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately the majority of people at Wikibooks find themselves working alone. You will get help in terms of copy-editing, etc., but in terms of new content creation you are unlikely to find someone to help out with substantial contributions. Typically they want to work on their own book. One option to get you started is to identify articles on Wikipedia that can be incorporated with some revision into your book. These can then be imported (via a request at WB:RFI, do not just copy / paste the material). The best example of a book started like this recently is Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant: The WikiBook where we imported about 50 articles to create the base material. QuiteUnusual (discusscontribs) 07:50, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
OK! StudiesWorld (discusscontribs) 11:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Interests for GQ Freeman[edit]

I am interested in 3D graphics and indie game design. Within wikibooks, "Blender 3D: Noob to Pro" is my sole focus at present. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gqfreeman (discusscontribs) 2014-04-16T00:30:36

Enhancing a Published Bibliography through Social Editing: is this the right place?[edit]

May I seek your opinion on the appropriateness of creating a Wikibooks edition of an academic research work we are about to publish?

In the Lands of the Romanovs by Anthony Cross is a large annotated bibliography of over 1200 English-language accounts of the Russian Empire written during the period 1613-1917. The title is published by Open Book Publishers under a CC BY license, is freely available to read and download (in HTML format) from the OBP website, and will also be made freely available from outlets such as Google Books, Worldreader etc. The book is also available in printed hardback and paperback editions and in various e-book formats, all of which will be retailed from our own and other sites (e.g. Amazon).

We (Open Book Publishers) would like to create a socially enhanced version of the book, and encourage readers to add new entries and create links to existing resources. In this way we believe that the content of this wide-ranging and ambitious work could be made even more comprehensive and useful for the scholarly community. We see Wikibooks as the perfect place for an edition of this kind, following in the footsteps of other social editing projects like The Devonshire Manuscript.

Before loading the work onto Wikibooks, however, we want to seek your feedback, and know whether you feel this is appropriate. In alternative, we are planning to create a private wiki on our own website, but we would much prefer to host the title here!

If you wish to have a look at the book, you can visit this page. Please note that this is just a prototype, provisionally built to test conversion into wiki markup, and that some minor parts of the book are still missing (front matters, introduction, bibliography and index). The HTML edition of the complete work can also be viewed from our website.

Lastly, some background about Open Book Publishers. We are a non-profit, Open Access publisher, committed to making high-quality research freely available to readers around the world. Founded by academics we have now published over 40 titles in the humanities and social sciences – all of which are free to read and download from our website. We have already loaded one of our books onto Wikisource, which however does not allow social editing of texts.

Openbookpublishers (discusscontribs) 11:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the book may be appropriate at Wikibooks or Wikiversity depending on its contents and how you want it to develop further. You mention academic research. Is the book the primary source of information for academic research done about the Russian Empire, or does the book instruct people in the history of the Russian Empire with citations from academic research that has been previously published in peer reviewed academic journals? Do you want people to expand the book by engaging and adding their own research to the book, or do you want people to add their own annotations and interpretations of the history of the Russian Empire to the book? --darklama 20:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. We expect the book will be used as a reference tools for those undertaking primary research into the Russian Empire during the reign of the Romanovs, or by people like auction houses and collectors of books from the period. It is not an instructional text and, other than the introduction, does not contain footnotes. It is primarily a long list of works written during the period, comments about the importance and significance of some individual works are made as part of the description of each work but it does not provide an interpretation of Russian history over the period. As a research tool we envisage it being expanded by people adding: bibliographic entries about new works that come to light, or the author had not been aware of; links to digitalized versions of the works identified, as increasing numbers of them become digitalized; ISBNs so as to allow the wiki 'find this book' function to operate, or alternative links to discovery engines such as Worldcat etc; expanded descriptions of the works identified; links between works by date, location, person etc. As a bibliography it would not be an appropriate venue for interpretations of history - but an invaluable resource for researchers to discover primary sources on which to form and justify interpretations. --Openbookpublishers (discusscontribs) 09:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The Devonshire Manuscript seems to instruct people in the history of the manuscript and the people believed to be connected with the manuscript's development and lots of other information that people may want to know when learning about the manuscript. Wikibooks is primarily for books that educate people through instruction. People would have to read the bibliographic sources to learn anything about the Russian Empire. I think the primary benefit to Wikibooks is in the wealth of sources listed in In the Lands of the Romanovs that people can cite in books about the Russian Empire. Sounds to me like In the Lands of the Romanovs is more appropriate at Wikiversity where historians, educators, and learners may benefit from reading and contributing new bibliographic sources. In the Lands of the Romanovs may have more in common with Other Free Learning Resources (Wikiversity) than any books at Wikibooks. I may be overlooking other perspectives though, hopefully other people will comment. --darklama 14:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I guess that much depends on whether we want to stress the fact that In the Lands of the Romanovs is a book, or rather present it as a learning/teaching tool. But you are absolutely right when you say that it does not instruct people on the Russian Empire: it is a source to find books on the topic. As such, it is probably more appropriate to Wikiversity, as you suggest. When referring to The Devonshire Manuscript I have in mind the collaborative dimension of that project, and the stress they place on social editing, which is what we are hoping to achieve. But I see that Wikiversity emphasises collaborative editing as much as Wikibooks does. Again, thank you very much for your feedback, and for the useful redirection!Openbookpublishers (discusscontribs) 14:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

DBMS Project – Anyone interested?[edit]

I am considering doing a wikibook on Database Management Systems for this term at university. Instead of simply making notes, I thought why not create something that can be read by everyone. My aim will be to create a comprehensive conceptual book with examples with the different DBMS in existence. This is a huge undertaking and I definitely will be looking out for volunteers who have expertise on DBMS.

One question I have is about copyright. I am completely new to the wiki world and want to know if I need to explicitly ask permission of the authors of a publication or whether properly attributing them is simply enough.

About the project, any suggestions on whether to include different types of databases - document-oriented, object-oriented, graph etc. or to concentrate on RDBMS. I could later on take it up as different projects.

I can explain the project in more detail, if you have any questions.

--Ksimeon (discusscontribs) 06:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The copyright issue is actually very simple, – to copy a substantial piece of text from a work to Wikibooks it’s required that either:
  1. the work is already released under the CC BY-SA 3.0 (or CC BY) license;
  2. the author (or some other person the author has transferred copyright to, as in: his or her employer or publisher) agrees to release the work under that license and confirms such a decision via an email to OTRS;
  3. the work is in the public domain, – which in this case would mean that it’s either a work of the US government, or was explicitly released to the public domain by the author.
As a rule of the thumb, if the work is only available for a fee (say, from the publisher’s Web site), it’s unlikely that the copyright holder will re-release it under CC BY-SA or CC BY.
Naturally, one can freely borrow ideas from existing works, as long as the actual text is written anew.
As for the “RDBMS or more” question – just start with a smaller goal, for it’s always possible to expand the scope of the book, possibly renaming it in the process.
Ivan Shmakov (dc) 20:33, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So I gather I can borrow some ideas, as long as I use my own words. However, if I have to directly quote a sentence or two in between, is it enough to cite it?

I will follow your suggestion and start with a single topic on RDBMS and then expand, depending on the time I have and the number of volunteers I get.

Ksimeon (discusscontribs) 07:33, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

My understanding is that directly quoting a few sentences is acceptable, as long as you attribute the source, and your own text related to these sentences is no smaller than the quotation itself. — Ivan Shmakov (dc) 07:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Jason Olshefsky—KiCAD for now[edit]

I've been using KiCAD as my circuit-design software-of-choice. As I work on it, I find some things are better documented than others. As I hit a problem, I've been documenting what I discover in the Kicad WikiBook. I'm sure I'll find other books to work on as well! Jason Olshefsky (discusscontribs) 12:20, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Divulgative dictionary from it.wb[edit]

Hi! I'm from the Italian Wikibooks and I'd like to signal a book that could be very interesting but is being written only by me: it:Dizionario chimico divulgativo. It is a divulgative chemical dictionary that contains no strict definitions but explanations, examples, pictures and anything useful to make headword clear for anyone (some examples: Atomo, Composto chimico, Legame intermolecolare).
I've posted this message here because I think that this kind of book can be extremely useful for reading other wikibooks. Now it's only in Italian and about chemistry, but I'd like to make other divulgative dictionaries about any other topic and in different languages. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything similar to my idea and I have no help from other users (it.wb is very small. I've proposed my project also on it.wikt and it.wp but I've received only compliments). I can write only with an intermediate (and scanty) level of English, so I can't translate it by myself.
I hope here my project can arouse more interest. --Riccardo Rovinetti (discusscontribs) 20:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks nice. I like the idea and I could see that it would be useful on English Wikibooks. I can certainly help with translation from Italian but my knowledge of chemistry terms (in English or Italian) is weak. Do any admins know of a way to import this here? All of the other language Wikis and Wikibooks have import pages with the option to import from other languages (WJ Europe was imported to both DE and RO Wikibooks) but we don't seem to.--ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 21:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I have supported past efforts to give potential dictionaries time to develop into something more and to be more flexible in interpreting the intentions of Wikibooks is not a dictionary. I think if the book can teach anyone with an interest in chemistry to understand chemistry texts better then it can potentially be within the scope of Wikibooks. See A Researcher's Guide to Local History Terminology for an example of what has been allowed, and Talk:A Researcher's Guide to Local History Terminology for an example of potential problems that may need to be addressed. OTOH sometimes potential dictionaries have been turned into Appendices at Wiktionary, like Wiktionary:Appendix:List of astronomical terms. --darklama 22:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I had already proposed to make my divulgative dictionary a sort of brother project of it.wikibooks, but they said that my idea is too young to be transformed in a wikimedia project or somehing similar, so I've decided to keep it as a Wikibook. Regard to translation, is not important to import the text but the idea! The headwords can be explained by en.wb users and my italian version contains few definitions. It also doesn't matter if you write a dictionary about chemistry or grammar, physics, botany, sport or anything else. My hope is that someone decides to start his own divulgative dictionary about the subject that he knows. --Riccardo Rovinetti (discusscontribs) 15:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I think I will try to create this book using some of the ideas from the Italian version - I'll reply to your message on my talk page soon. The main page, as you said, can be translated from the Italian version and the other pages can be written fresh by us here at en.wikibooks. --ЗAНИA Flag of the Isle of Mann.svgtalk 19:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)