Wikibooks:Reading room/Archive 22

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Contents 1 New Algebra text in simple language 2 Enhancement request for separating page title rendering from subpage syntax 3 Wikiversity 4 "Important" Books 5 wikibook "blender: noob to pro" 6 ICT4D books 7 The Assayer 8 Oppose move of unicode articles 8.1 dungadibiblibob... 9 Wikimania Awards 10 Help merging transwikied pages 11 Request 11.1 include Wikizine link (feedback request) 12 Navigation links 13 Template:Qif and Template:Switch 14 Wikibooks:General voting rules/Proposal 15 砲火 万物の霊長 ( talk | email | contribs ) 16 Reorganization Advice Sought 17 Vandalism templates 18 Collaboration and Book of the Month for August 19 Transwiki redirect deletion 20 Some Wikibooks on our educational DVD 21 Category sort enhancement request 22 Wikibooks:Deletion policy 23 Requesting bot flag 24 Subpage categories 25 Naming policy - common names? 26 Cologne Blue skin has a minor bug 27 Bureaucrat Vote 28 Old computer graphics course 29 Policy cleanup 30 Educational resources 30.1 Contacting professors 31 User:Jguk's category spree 32 Can we use other free (as in beer) sites as part of a curriculum? 33 Self Interest and Social Behavior

[edit] New Algebra text in simple language

A new user, User:HSTutorials, who runs HSTutorials.net, has started an Algebra in simple english text that looks rather ambitious. I hope other maths contributors can help it conform to style standards and link out to other related texts here. Sj 14:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why was this not added to the Simple English Wikibooks instead? I know that project doesn't get too much support, but this seems like a no-brainer about the fact that it should be transwikied to that project instead, if you want to consider Simple English to be something of a seperate language. It would also get quite a bit more support simply by being associated with other Simple English contributors. I'm not going to rehash all of the arguments for if a seperate set of Wikimedia sister projects should be set up as a whole other language just for the "simple" versions of English, but this does looks like a good addition to that project. And nearly double Simple English Wikibooks just off of a transwiki like this. --Rob Horning 17:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was a "simple english" project. I know this isn't the right venue to discuss the merits of that project, but it seems to me a needless diversion of resources away from this project. However, that being said, I doubt that this new book will be written in a manner that distinguishes itself enough from other texts on the subject, and it will probably just be merged eventually. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 18:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enhancement request for separating page title rendering from subpage syntax

Some time ago we discuss this issue (see Wikibooks talk:Naming policy/Archive 2). In Spanish Wikibooks we have recently talk about it and have decided to open an enhancement request in MediaZilla, see bug 6723. Please, contribute your thoughts. ManuelGR 20:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems like you should just ask for some html wrappers around those elements to be added and some CSS classes applied. Then you could adjust the local stylesheet. This would be easier than having conditionals everywhere. Kellen ^T 23:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

We have prepared some mockups in es:Usuario:Ciencia Al Poder/Pruebas and most of them are implementable using CSS classes. ManuelGR 11:33, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

I'm trying to figure out what exactly is the status of the wikiversity project? I've spent some time over at meta sifting through old discussions, and i can't seem to find anything indicating what the state of that project is now. Is wikiversity moving off wikibooks? is it moving soon?

The problem I am having now is that wikibooks content and wikiversity content is intermingling at an alarming rate. Wikiversity courses are being listed as "New Books", and some are even finding their way onto bookshelves. Books are being listed as wikiversity courses. On top of that, wikiversity courses are utilizing some prime namespace that could be better utilized for the wikibooks mission. Now, i'm not in favor necessarily of deletion (because I know it's survived a VfD already, albeit nearly a year ago), but I want to know if wikiversity is going to split off soon, because i don't think it will be possible to break it off if it stays too much longer.

If wikiversity doesnt go anywhere, we will need to merge all it's content into the wikibooks fold, which will not be an easy or quick task, by any stretch. If it does have a solid timeline for leaving, perhaps we need to draw a line in the sand to keep material neatly separated. Wikiversity courses and pages should need to be clearly labled as such, to avoid being confused with books. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 02:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been a long, infuriatingly slow process to start up Wikiversity. Right now I'm serving on the "sub-committee" that is supposedly doing the final prep work to get Wikiversity started on an independent wiki domain, but what is needed now is formal approval from the Wikimedia Foundation board of trustees. We have done just about everything that was asked by the board and have tried to address their concerns, rewritten policy documents, and held multiple public comment sessions about the concept. In the meantime, it appears as though even the rules to start it up have been changed and additional layers of needless bureaucracy have been added.

In short, I am not holding my breath too much to get this going. I'm not even really sure how to submit an item to the Foundation board anymore for inclusion on the next board meeting agenda (the pages on Meta for that are incredibly out of date and don't appear to be looked at anyway). I suppose I could be a jackass with Jimbo and Anthere and demand directly that it should be dealt with, but that seems to be the only way to get any action happening right now. This issue has been raised multiple times on Foundation-l, with Jimbo playing ignorant and claiming that it hasn't been formally submitted to the board.

I suppose if some Wikibookian was to get hyper-involved with the developer team, this would be a trivial task to accomplish. As de.wikiversity is already up and going, with regular backups and data dumps already part of the Wikimedia project families, I have absolutely no idea why en.wikiversity is so difficult to add to that list. And as demonstrated with the incubator project, if the developers have a pet project they want to see going, it is started up without even seeming approval or community discussion to get it started.

As far as having Wikiversity content cluttering up Wikibooks, you are correct that this is an issue. And this is precisely why the original VfD for Wikiversity was put up. In many ways, I am treating this as a test of the WMF to see if they actually will respond to ordinary user requests or if they have become so insulated from ordinary contributors that it doesn't matter any more. If there is an objection to Wikiversity by board members, I don't know what those objections might be or even reasonable approaches to deal with them right now. All that it really is going to take to get it started is somebody with substantial pull (I'm not that person) to simply say "get it going now!" --Rob Horning 12:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was never in favor of the wikiversity proposal in the first place, and i certainly am unhappy that the project has been banished, essentially, to become a permanent fixture here on en.wikibooks. However, if the WMF is holding up the works, then I can't get too angry about it: it will go when the WMF gets up and does something about it. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, well, for a start, just to assure Whiteknight that Wikiversity is about to be set up as an independent project - I am as good as certain about that.

Robert, I have some problems with what you're saying here. First of all, as you know, de.wikiversity.org was never approved by the Foundation - it was simply set up on the basis of an informal request to Brion. Setting up a wiki is never a problem - the problem has always been whether the board (or now also the Special projects committee) approve of the project as a Wikimedia project, and whether it also has approval and support from the community.

I don't think this has simply been about inactivity on behalf of the WMF - it's more complex that that - although you're right in saying it is a test of the WMF. In fact, it's been a test for everyone involved - ie yourself, myself, and many others. Particularly on the subcommittee, we've been trying to identify what will work for Wikiversity and act as a stepping stone to the board in this respect. I'm not sure why you see the WMF being "insulated from ordinary contributors" - setting up Wikiversity is more than saying "this is an interesting idea - let's set it up"; it's more like "is it within our mission, and will it work (and how)?". Sure, the process has been slow and frustrating (and you know I agree with you on this), but, to be honest, I find myself at as partial fault as I do anyone else. Also, what do you mean about Jimbo playing ignorant - I don't think we ever formally submitted the proposal since the board's last recommendation last November - or can you refresh my memory here?

Whiteknight, I'm curious, what do you mean by never being in favour of the proposal in the first place - you mean the one at m:Wikiversity? What do you think of the current one? Also, in no way has the project been permanently banished to Wikibooks for good - I don't know why it was put here in the first place, but the whole point of the current process is to find it a definite home. And to finally address your initial question - you're right in that there will be some ambiguity between Wikibooks and Wikiversity content, and I imagine this will continue - my view on this is that the projects should share as much as possible, but format the content to their own projects' missions, ie textbooks and learning resources. As I've said before, Wikiversity participants will hopefully use their learning to write textbooks at Wikibooks and, conversely, Wikibooks can send people over to Wikiversity to learn how to write (for example). Content will have to be moved from wikibooks to wikiversity - however, the initial restructuring should be done carefully - in no way would I like to see Wikibooks damaged by the forking of Wikiversity material. I'll work as much as I can to make the transition as smooth as possible. Cormaggio 12:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely disagree that this has been difficult. It is hardly difficult at all to create a new sub-domain for an already existing internet domain and setup a new mediawiki port for that sub-domain. Indeed Brion has done that several times since the Wikiversity vote. This is invented bureaucratic red tape, pure and simple. And the whole issue of the "special projects" committee wasn't even set up until well after the vote and even a full rewrite and review of the Wikiversity charter. In fact, it was precisely when I was trying to re-submit the revised Wikiversity proposal to the board that the whole special project committee was started. I'm not saying that the work of the sub-committee hasn't been appreciated, but I think it wasn't strictly necessary and could have been done by Wikiversity participants on a beta version of Wikiversity on its own domain. BTW, regarding de.wikiversity: the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees has never said that it was improper for Brion to act in the manner that he did, nor were any attempts done to "freeze" that wiki pending board approval of the Wikiversity concept (IMHO a good way to stop that from becoming a precedent). In fact, Brion has started several other wikis, notably the incubator wiki, without having to go through the community. Indeed Brion acted as if there had never been any community generated proposals for an incubator wiki. So why is Wikiversity any different? The only reason I can see is because a board member didn't initiate the idea nor did a developer. --Rob Horning 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Very briefly (as this discussion could go on for a while), on the Special projects committee, its setting up was coincidental with the development of Wikiversity, and was set up to make the process clearer and easier to set up projects like Wikiversity, not add more red tape. In setting up Wikiversity, we may have set a precedent of good practice, or possibly not - which we will need to evaluate (and which I am currently doing). But I simply can't accept that this process is just about 'turning on' a wiki - it's about developing a rationale for the Wikiversity project. You may argue that this was done some time ago - I would agree with this to a point - but then why do we still get comments like these? And, while I agree that Brion's setting up of the incubator wiki (for example) was not-well enough explained (and hence, bad organisational practice), this is exactly why the Wikiversity process has been so difficult (or, at least, lengthy), despite how annoyed you may be about it. I'd really like to discuss this further with you, but am aware it could go on and on - should we move to our talk pages, or a new page on Meta perhaps, or take it to email? Cormaggio 10:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer your previous question (albeit a little late, on my part), I was never in favor of the creation of the new wikiversity project at all, under any proposal. A few hundred people voted (i can't remember where), and I voted against it's creation. I would venture to say that nearly one third of all the voters agreed with me.

I won't go into all my reasons for that here, however, because that isnt the topic at hand. If we don't make a stark differentiation between content that is "wikibooks" content, and content that is "Wikiversity" content, then when wikiversity finally does go to it's own home, we are going to end up with heaps and heaps of duplicate information on both servers. Bot only does it not benefit anybody to have essentially two wikibooks, but it will also be a detriment in that our already limited userbase is going to get cut in half. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:57, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Important" Books

Hi all,

I was doing some reading on Wikipedia the other day, and came across their proposal for a Wikipedia 1.0 CD, which would have good quality articles about "core topics." I was just curious, what do you all think the "core books" of Wikibooks would be? Personally, I would think the most "important" books would be ones that college freshmen and sophomores would use. I'd like to make a list of the "core books" of the Wikibooks project, and see how good the books we have on those topics are- User:Paul_Lynch/Core Topics DettoAltrimenti 07:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well we have lots of books which might be considered core subjects, but unfortunately, few of them are really all that complete or up to snuff. Kellen ^T 09:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"core subjects" and "good quality" are not the same. A small but determined community can produce a high quality book while larger comunity might not bothered because the subject has allready been covered elsewhere. In this we are different from Wikipedia. So if we are to colled "core books" I would go by the quality book in existance and not on how main stream the subject is. --Krischik ^T 09:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a good point. I think that in many developed countries, the books aimed at undergraduates would make the biggest financial impact. After all, I can't think of anybody who is paying more for texts then undergraduate students. However, in the developing world, it is much harder to get ahold of any books, especially books to teach children basic subjects. Fortunately, I think a wikibooks CD would have enough space to include many different books on many different subjects. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this opening a can of worms or what? As far as core subjects of Wikibooks, I would have to point to the books of the month as the real place to look. Now if you are trying to come up with a full university-level curriculum based on Wikibooks content, it will be years or even decades before that is going to happen on Wikibooks.

I don't think you can find even one Wikibook near completion that is based off of any specific educational standard of any kind, although there are a few that certainly are trying to get there. The problem here is what standard should be we using? You can look at Help:Textbook Standards for some standards that have been gathered together in once spot to at least begin the search. Most of these standards are for traditional elementary and secondary educational instruction, but that is a place to start. I do wish these standards were used more in Wikibooks.

One of the best "core curriculum" series of books on Wikibooks at the moment is the International Baccalaureate series that covers many of the core courses mentioned above. While the depth of these books isn't really up to book of the month standards, the breadth of this project certainly is incredibly ambitious and worthy of continued support by Wikibooks users. I hope this is more toward what you were looking for in terms of quality core books that deserve note. --Rob Horning 14:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wikibook "blender: noob to pro"

link in 'blender 3D' has failed to launch for a couple days on my computer.

thnx zhnkiu

I don't know what to tell you, the link works fine for me. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

okay, it works now. tastes like spyware. i reformated my hd... zhnkiu [delete this whenever]

[edit] ICT4D books

Dear Wikibooks Staff:

APDIP, the Asia Pacific Development Information Programme (under the UNDP), is willing to donate to the Wikibooks programme some of its many ebooks and primers that it brought out, on the theme of ICT4D (information and communication technologies for development). Would Wikibooks be willing to create a special category to give this topic its deserved prominence? --Fredericknoronha 19:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC) (Frederick Noronha, co-founder BytesForAll)

That certainly sounds like a generous offer. We can easily set up a new category for this type of information. Also, there are bookshelves such as the Wikibooks:Computer science bookshelf, and the wikibooks:Engineering bookshelf, that would make good homes to books on this subject. It might take some work to get all the material formatted for wikimedia, but free ebooks is something that we shouldnt scoff at. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 21:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to note that by moving the content to Wikibooks, you are indicating that you want to allow others to be able to add to, modify (perhaps substantially), and update the contents of these books, all without any formal approval process for these changes other than what is normally done on a Wiki. If instead you simply want to preserve this content as e-books that would be available to people to read, but you would like to have essentially complete books available to be freely copied, I would suggest our sister project, Wikisource.

I do agree that this is a very generous offer, and if the quality of the content is high, they would deserve some front page attention as well, including a seperate bookshelf and perhaps on things like the Book of the Month or "Hot Picks" sections.

Please make sure that you understand the terms and conditions of the Gnu Free Document License (GFDL) when you donate this content. Generally this isn't a big deal for small contributions of text, but for something major like this I just want to make sure that everybody involved understands just what a copyleft license is about and its implications. That doesn't mean you can't later use the original content under another copyright license (you are the original copyright owner), but that everything that is added to Wikibooks must be available under that distribution license.

I'm certain if there was some significant quality to this content, there would also be some volunteers to perform formatting tasks and other items to make the content "look nice" and conform to typical Wikibooks styles, as well as give it a good look through for any obvious mistakes. --Rob Horning 06:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Assayer

Should Wikibooks carry a link to the Assayer on its main page? Certainly we should try to add as many of the completed Wikibooks to the Assayer's list. RobinH 15:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Probably not. We don't link to gutenberg or other such projects, so I'm not sure why assayer should get any special preference. Kellen ^T 16:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree that Wikibooks should be linked into the Assayer in terms of book reviews and showing off some of the best of what we got here. I don't think Mr. Crowell would mind that at all.

As far as having a link from Wikibooks to the Assayer, I would have to agree partially with Kellen that it should be part of a list of "suggested" free e-book links. The nice thing about the Assayer is that it encourages reviews of copyleft or public domain books, and I think any link from the front page (even if on a seperate page of links to free e-books) should meet a similar standard. Links to Microsoft publications, for example, would not be encouraged.

We also don't want to clutter up the front page with a bunch of useless stuff, and should make changes there as careful as possible. --Rob Horning 18:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Oppose move of unicode articles

I don't know why the articles about unicode (such as Windows Programming/Unicode/Character reference/0000-0FFF) was classified under Windows Programming section. Unicode is indepedent to a certain Operating System so these namings were obviously wrong. Please consider move them elsewhere (without using any operating system as article name) --✉Hello World! 11:48, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] dungadibiblibob...

There aren't no articles on wikibooks, we like to call them book pages as such they can exist in any number of works no matter what title they are under, if you wish to write a book about Unicode you can "copy" them and give credit to the original work,( or similar, you can try to make use of the content on the original location without replicating it). You should check the "dumb" fork policy but if it's not 75% or the original work no one should bother you.
If you are refering to it as article it could have been a stub (no content enought to call it a book or pages in a book), if so and no one was working on it recently it could be moved to a book, preserving any talk pages, other works can use it from there if needed. I also will be using some content about Unicode for the C++ book one of this days...
--Panic 12:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Please help me do so. However I don't think this article (I still called it article because it was copied here without asking my opinion) is not any appendices of another book, and should be moved back to wikipedia. --✉Hello World! 13:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Harrg, remove content from wikibooks, count me out m8t...
You can copy the content to wikipedia if you like giving credit to it, if you are you the original author, if so, you should go about the normal process to get your stuff removed if you made it a contribution to wikipedia, wikibooks can use it and should refer to it in the book (check the start of the C++ book, there are some strange and twilight zone issues with multiple licenses but I think that is not your case). If that is the only cause of your protest (that content is replicated here from wikipedia), it can be replicated (but shouldn´t be a carbon copy, wikibooks is not a backup for wikipedia articles) if this is the case the only action you can take is to check if the book were it's inserted gives the proper credits to wikipedia if not, mark it as a violation and if you have the time write to the proper wikibooks snail mail address or try to check the copyright violations page...--Panic 13:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The fact was that, I am the author who first created them on Chinese and English Wikipedia (and someone copied them onto Japanese and Korean Wikipedia). At one time many articles about Unicode were transwikied to Wikisource. And on May 26 it was then copied here (not transwikied, so the move is without mentioning my contribution). --✉Hello World! 14:00, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know the procedure of how to move back my articles to English Wikipedia so I seek help here.--✉Hello World! 14:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

See Copyright violations, that should do it (but if you think that you incurred in any losses you will have to process the 1st violator of your copyright, and request all others to pull down the content, this may depend on what you really want or the law under you do it), this Internet think made IP and copyrights a thing of the past, only big corporation can still do something when stuff gets freed...--Panic 18:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

If the content was released under the GFDL (as apparently it was put on en.wikipedia and elsewhere), the person who did that should have at least mentioned the top 5 principle authors including yourself. The meta:transwiki guidelines strongly suggest that you actually copy the entire history. Perfered in this situation is to use the import/export page options, but that is not currently working for the MediaWiki version that Wikibooks is using. BTW, this is a simple thing to correct if you really are concerned about the credit. I hope you don't consider this to be a copyright issue, as it can be corrected easily.

I have never heard a specific percentage that is required in order to consider that it is unique and not violating the proposed forking policy. The main criteria is that content within a wikibook must be seperately maintained, so if you are going to fork content from other Wikimedia projects, please make sure that there is some value added to bring it within a particular book. For example, General Chemistry/Periodic Table does a pretty good job of dealing with a simplified version of a periodic table that is intended just for this one Wikibook. The more elaborate version is on Wikipedia, obviously, but that full version doesn't need to be copied here. I fail to see why this content on Wikibooks needs to be removed if done for a similar reason.

One other aspect to keep in mind is that when trying to compile a "full" version of a Wikibook (usually through transclusion), it helps if that content is hosted locally on this project in some form. For this reason alone, Wikibooks should have a softer stance on forking until the MediaWiki software allows trans-project transclusions. I don't see that happening any time soon. --Rob Horning 19:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care about the copyright issue, but I do care why unicode is classified under windows programming. Periodic table, for example, is undoubtedly a subset of chemistry.--✉Hello World! 04:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are misunderstanding Wikibooks then. This is an independent book called "Windows Programming" that is using the Unicode content as a part of its appendix. This is not a "classification" of the content by any means, and you shouldn't have to expect to look in that book if it was the only potential source of this content. --Rob Horning 05:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

To be fair, as the current primary contributor to that text, I don't understand why that unicode material was moved to the Windows Programming in the first place. Granted, windows does make strong use of Unicode, but it is hardly platform dependant. If you want to have unicode material in other books, feel free to move it or copy it to a better location. I'll even lend a hand in the move, if you find a better location. Maybe you can start a new book on digital text formats? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 21:25, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm suggesting it doesn't need to be moved, as Wikibooks is not a collection of independent articles. Content like this can and indeed should belong with individual books if there is a purpose for having it that is related to the content of that book. That is the defense I'm providing for where it is. Suggesting that the content should be moved to a "better place" is suggesting that the content shouldn't be in that book in the first place.

As far as why content like this is being moved around and simply added to the most convieniet book that is handy, I think that is a problem of the Wikibooks cleanup crew in general. We didn't always have a strong naming policy and sometimes content like this, which really isn't book-like when independent, was not really associated strongly with any regular book content. When the naming policy became "enforced policy", some content like this was moved to an individual Wikibook where it appeared as though some links may have been pointing to it, or in some cases it was moved to any book that seemed to be the most appropriate for that content considering all other Wikibooks. That was not the case with this Unicode content, however. One user, User:Pcu123456789, decided on his own by being bold copied this content from Wikisource, as noted by this page history link. As an author/contributor, this certainly was a legitimate thing to add to this book, although that is something best decided by the contributors to that Wikibook. The existance/non-existance of another Wikibook that might be a "better fit" is irrelevant in this case. --Rob Horning 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the Unicode section in his Windows_Programming book should be moved out and form an indepedent book. Should we? --✉Hello World! 12:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No, and i'll tell you why: The Windows Programming book does need information about unicode. Programming in modern windows variants does require some knowledge of unicode, and there are plenty of places in windows that either require the explicit use of unicode, or an implicit conversion to unicode. As such, the Windows Programming book should have a section about unicode, and this section (while it needs some work to fit into the book correctly) is appropriate for that purpose. Now, this is not to say that unicode shouldn't be discussed in other books as well, but I don't think that there is quite enough material about unicode to form it's own book. If another book needs to discuss unicode, a link to relevant wikipedia articles, and perhaps a short blurb here about the specific use is all that is required. What you are saying is akin to suggesting that we remove all references to ASCII text from the various programming books, and create an "ASCII" book. I think it is much wiser to simply include links and information about unicode in every book that requires such a discussion. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 14:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was suggesting that all information on Unicode be removed from Windows Programming. How about keeping the parts about how Windows implements Unicode and move the Character References to a Unicode book. The Windows Programming book could reference the Unicode one. This way there is less redundancy and efforts are concentrated. --Swift 00:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I did think about that, but even that idea has a problem. The unicode material is a list of entries, and is not, therefore a textbook. You can't make a "textbook" out of a bunch of tables and a colorful navigational template. If you separate out this material into it's own book, i predict that book will end up on WB:VFD within a few months. Now, if you want to include this information in multiple books, you could perhaps create a "shared-appendix" that could be transcluded into multiple books. You would, in that instance, have to not only create a shared appendix, but also transclude the information into all the other pages where it might be useful. If you want to move this information out of the Windows Programming book, you are free to attempt it, I won't stop you. Just keep in mind that this material, on it's own, would probably be deleted. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 00:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting a book full of mere tables (your suggestion on digital text formats sounds good). Until someone writes those pages, the shared appendix idea seems fine. --Swift 01:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Are there any examples of shared appendices ? --✉Hello World! 08:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikimania Awards

The Wikimania Awards honors the best writing and media on the Wikimedia projects from the past year. One category is specifically for textbook material. Please nominate great modules and texts that have been written, or almost entirely rewritten, since last August. Please also let the authors know their work has been nominated.

Cheers, +sj + 23:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help merging transwikied pages

These are all the pages still in Special:Prefixindex/transwiki. Not all of these have been added to Category:Modules from transwiki.

General Transwiki:How-to/Motorcycling Transwiki:How to distinguish a monocot from a dicot Transwiki:Buying snowboards Transwiki:Satellite dish installation Transwiki:Early literacy Transwiki:Building Watching Transwiki:Derivation of Snell's Law Transwiki:How to increase vertical jump Body Piercing/Piercing Aftercare Transwiki:Special product and factoring Transwiki:Quantum mechanics explained Transwiki:Slating procedure Transwiki:Developing a library websites Pages on VFD Transwiki:Building Watching Transwiki:How-to/Motorcycling Transwiki:How to increase vertical jump Body Piercing/Piercing Aftercare

Computer science Transwiki:Dumping MSX ROM cartridges Transwiki:LDAP authentication in Linux Transwiki:Packages in Java Transwiki:Bypassing the Great Firewall of China Transwiki:3D Engine Transwiki:3D Game Engine Transwiki:B+ tree Transwiki:B+ Tree Java Implementation Transwiki:Create bit mask algorithm Transwiki:Front door method Transwiki:Inbound connectivity under 3G Datacard Transwiki:Mac Xbox development Transwiki:NIS Configuration on Debian Transwiki:Programming problems Transwiki:Selection sort implementations Transwiki:Solaris FTP server setup Transwiki:Generate a keypair using OpenSSL Transwiki:FPI script Transwiki:Type conversion Transwiki:How to use Subversion

Computer software Transwiki:Flash MX 2004 Transwiki:Internet Safety Guide Transwiki:Online Security Good Practices Transwiki:OpenTZT Transwiki:Paper model tutorials Transwiki:Graphics in two modes Transwiki:Basic bitmap image editing Transwiki:Graphics tutorials Transwiki:Useful unix command Pages with {{merge}} markers Transwiki:Dominance training Transwiki:First Aid for Bleeding Transwiki:Manual transmission driving technique Transwiki:List of guitar chords Transwiki:Lights Out (cocktail) Transwiki:Dichotomous Key:Pachypodium Japanese/Guide Fiction technique

Could those managing a book spend a few minutes to merge any relevant pages into their books. I want to clear up our backlog as quickly as possible. --hagindaz 03:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to go through, and pick out the articles that i can find a quick home for. I'll be back later and try to work on whatever is left. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Hi, I am user meta:user:Walter. I respectfully request this community to consider my following request; I write a newsletter about what is going on in the Wikimedia projects in all languages. It is my hope that every community, like this one, has some people who read Wikizine. Then I can maybe receive some news from those readers about your project and in the other direction the can inform there community in your own language about the Wikimedia news possibly. I would like to ask this community to include on this page on the top and/or a relevant page a small banner for Wikizine.

If a banner is placed here on the correct page the change that someone here will think about Wikizine and report some local news will increase highly I suspect. Or that people will take a look and read the Wikimedia news. And maybe even share it locally. Here are the banners; meta:Wikizine/banners

If there are questions please ask it here. I will be watching this page for at least two weeks from now on frequently. Greetings, --Walter 14:13, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea. I would like first to ask what other projects/languages do have such a banner installed. I don't think we will set up en.wikibooks to be the guinnea pig here, but if there are other good examples, that will certainly be comforting. Such a banner could easily go here in the staff lounge, or they could go in the Wikibooks:Community Portal as well. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The EN wikipedia has a text link on w:en:Wikipedia:Community Portal and w:en:Wikipedia:News. After first doing a posting to the projects mailing lists, including Wikibooks ([1]) I have started with the process to visited slowly all wikis to ask there cooperation directly. I have started only last week so it is to early to know the real responds yet. On the smaller projects things go much slower. These have added it already; q:ja:Wikiquote:井戸端, q:pt:Wikiquote:Esplanada, q:nl:Wikiquote:De kantine, w:nl:Wikipedia:De kroeg&w:nl:Portaal:Gebruikersportaal. Several others look good but are waiting for possible more responds for there community.

But what others do has actually nothing to do with this wiki. It is your choise --Walter 23:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly not saying that we are dependant upon the actions of the other wikis. However, I won't opt to make wikibooks a guinnea pig for new experiments. If en.wikipedia includes such a link already, however, I feel more assured about the action. I've been to the wikizine link, and it looks alright. I'm going to ask for other users' input here, and hopefully we can put a link up sometime soon. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] include Wikizine link (feedback request)

I would like to ask for some feedback on this issue from other users. en.wikipedia already includes a link to this "wikizine" at their community portal, and i suggest that we do the same. The site looks legitimate, and could potentially be both a good source of information, but also a good advertising venue for us. I think that we should, perhaps, include a link both at the community portal, but also here in the staff lounge (if we can fit a new link or template box at the top of this crowded page). Any comments/suggestions? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I created a page for it at Wikibooks:Wikizine. This page was a copy+paste job from a similar page on en.wikipedia. We can post links from staff lounge and community portal to this page, and this page will take people to the site. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Navigation links

I noticed today that the navigation links on the left-hand side have changed. I don't particularly miss the link to wikiversity, but i know some people did use the links to wikijunior. I personally found the link to the staff lounge to be particularly useful. Why did they remove these links, and how can we change them back? --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought this was controlled by MediaWiki:Sidebar... but it appears to still have the wikijunior, etc, links so perhaps the mediawiki version was updated and this is now ignored? The new version of this is bad, too, because it includes Current events which is just a redirect to Wikibooks:Community Portal Kellen ^T 20:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

This is a long standing problem with the current version of MediaWiki, and is a bug right now. Generally it will get "fixed" here in a day or so, so don't panic yet. For some reason the sidebar doesn't always work the way it should, especially when for some reason the servers are being worked on or are particularly slow. It would be nice to track this bug down, however. --Rob Horning 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A workaround for this is quite simple: An administrator needs to edit MediaWiki:Sidebar, klick on preview, and then on save. No changes will be needed and not even saved, but: The cache will be updated with the correct version. -- ThePacker 00:03, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that is one bug for the recordbook. I'll have to add that to the MediaWiki Administrator's Handbook. --Rob Horning 02:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Weird. So ... a new installation of mediawiki has a precached version of the page? Does this work if you just use the purge option on the page's URL? Kellen ^T 03:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

A Purge doesn't work. I tried it more than one times. -- ThePacker 08:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Qif and Template:Switch

These templates are now deprecated and are replaced by ParserFunctions. Could an admin please unprotect them and put up a notice on each? I've already removed them from all pages on wikibooks. Kellen ^T 14:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

On the unlikely chance that the parserfunctions are removed or discontinued, I think we should keep these around, unaltered. No sense unprotecting them either, since most users wont even know what these templates do, much less how to edit them in a way that is consistant with their purpose. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 14:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, meant "unprotect so as to put up a notice not to use the template". Kellen ^T 15:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are the affected pages, in case I screwed up any:

French/Grammar/Print version French/Texts/Print version Template:Booland Template:EuropeanHistoryTOC Template:French Appendices Footer Template:French Appendices Header Template:French Contents Footer Template:French Contribute Template:French Grammar Footer Template:French Grammar Header Template:French Lessons Compact Template:French Lessons Template:French Present Verb Template:French Table Template:French Template Template:French Tenses Template:French Texts Footer Template:French Texts Header Template:French Texts

Template:French/Lessons/Introductory/Footer Template:French/Lessons/Introductory/Header Template:French/Lessons/Level one/Footer Template:French/Lessons/Level one/Header Template:French/Lessons/Level three/Footer Template:French/Lessons/Level three/Header Template:French/Lessons/Level two/Footer Template:French/Lessons/Level two/Header Template:French/Texts/Fables de La Fontaine/Footer Template:French/Texts/Fables de La Fontaine/Header Template:French/Texts/Le Petit Prince/Footer Template:French/Texts/Le Petit Prince/Header Template:French/Texts/National anthems/Footer Template:French/Texts/National anthems/Header Template:French/Texts/Wikinews/Footer Template:French/Texts/Wikinews/Header Template:German table Template:German/Appendices/Footer Template:German/Appendices/Header Template:German/Grammar/Footer

Template:German/Lessons Template:German/Level I/Header Template:German/Level II/Header Template:German/Template Template:Infobox Template:Language table Template:PDF version Template:Peekaboo Template:Print version Template:Recipesummary Template:SeasonalitySpec Template:Seasonality Template:See also Template:Sth Template:Str Template:Strr Template:TurkishTOC User:Salvor

Kellen ^T 15:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll unprotect them now, and we can put up a note that they are deprecated. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Kellen ^T 09:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:General voting rules/Proposal

I don't remember if i mentioned this before or not. I have created a proposed revision of the general voting rules policy: Wikibooks:General voting rules/Proposal. I created this revision with the intent on removing hard percentages from the voting requirements, and putting an emphasis on community and concensus.

Also, whether this revision is acceptable or not, I would like the community to come together, and finalize at least some general version of the general voting rules policy. It is my firm belief that if we can get a voting policy enforced, we can move to decision on other outstanding proposed policies relatively quickly. This policy will help to form a policy foundation that wikibooks can stand on, and can move forward to the future with. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, let's get the format for voting accepted and then tackle the problem of consensus, majority votes etc. as a separate issue. RobinH 09:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've made changes to this policy as suggested by the few people who have actually come to read it, so far. I think (hope) that this proposed version is broad enough that we can move to a vote on it. I am going to start a vote on it soon, and I will send out a few messages and try to get some more opinions on it first. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 18:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 砲火 万物の霊長 ( talk | email | contribs )

This appears to be a pagemove vandal/bot of some sort, moving pages to some foreign characters. Can anyone block it?? --Wur-dene 19:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I just took care of it, thanks for the head's up. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization Advice Sought

I've been working on a book (Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book) since October, and I have now come across a bit of an organizational problem that I need advice in addressing.

First a bit of background. This book is an instructor's guide for teaching Pathfinder honors. Pathfinders is an international youth club similar to Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and the "honors" are the equivalent of merit badges.

One of my contributors has been adding entries based on the way the honors are defined in Australia - each area of the world is given the latitude to adopt its own version of the honors, and in some cases they can change substantially. I have been using the North American version. It is important that the honors be taught as adopted by the local division, and I estimate that perhaps 60% of the honors differ between these two areas (and there are other areas to consider as well that may have their own version).

I don't want to say - "use the North American version," but I need to make it the distinction clear so that the users of the book don't accidently grab the wrong version.

As it is now, the book has three levels of hierarchy:

Top Level

Honor Categories

Individual Honors

The second level has ten sections, and the third level has something like 350 chapters. Work has been done on about 25% of these, so anything I do to re-org is going to be painful.

Should I fork the book, making locality-specific versions? Should I add a fourth level to the existing hierarchy (between the first and second levels I would think), or should I do something else? Oh - one other thing: not all of the honors are different. Many of them are exactly the same from one locality to the next. So if I add a fourth level, I may end up sharing chapters rather than duplicating them.

Moving it to a different language almost does what I want, but they speak English in Australia so that's not gonna fly. I really need some ideas here!

Jim Thomas 03:15, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the way in which pages are marked right now, with the little maps works pretty well for distinguishing the region for specific honors. If you have the same honor in different regiions that differ substantially, just give it a different name like "Sewing (South Pacific Division)." Also, you might consider organizing the honors with categories for each division. That way, you can encode the fact that the honors apply to more than one division, and you can produce a complete listing of available honors by division. Or, you could fork the books and have "Adventist Youth Honors (South Pacific)" but that seems like it'll just make more work for people if a good number of the honors are exactly the same. Kellen ^T 09:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt even do that. I would attempt to separate each page, into different localities. Use headings and templates to indicate specific points or requirements that are specific to a single locality, and don't mark the things that are pretty universal. This way, you dont need to reorg the book at all, and the different material can become very clear. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism templates

There has been some discussion about deleting some of the vandalism user templates, and I would like to turn it into an official discussion. I would like to permanently delete the following templates:

• Template:WoW
• Template:MPS
• Template:sockpuppet
• Category:Suspected Wikibooks sockpuppets of Willy on Wheels
• Category:Suspected Wikibooks sockpuppets
• Category:Suspected Wikibooks sockpuppets of Mr.Pelican Shit
• Category:Suspected sockpuppets

If a user is found to be a bad-faith sockpuppet or a sockpuppet of a known vandal, that username should be blocked forever. We do not, however, need to erect a monument to every single sockpuppet, with a fancy template. sockpuppet accounts, IMO should be blocked, and forgotten forever. Also, I would like to delete the several (verbose) categories that accompany these templates, as being nothing but listings of users who have already been identified as vandals, and blocked forever. No sense listing information that doesnt matter.

I didn't want to make this a VfD discussion, because it is more a matter of policy (the policy of identifying and glorifying sockpuppets).--Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:28, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that those should be deleted. This isn't Wikipedia. The user who created these templates may very well just have the "all wikis are like Wikipedia" mentality thinking that all wikis work similarly in the project and is moving those templates, but we don't need them. Upon looking at his contributions, many of his edits seem questionable to me. All those Wikipedia-like template copies should be wiped in my opinion. -Matt 12:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason for having templates like this is to watch and monitor problematic users. From my opinion, templates like this add to the notoriety of this particular individual who deserves none. The templates, categories, and any content in these categories need to be removed. In fact, I have no problem even deleting any user pages for known vandals. It is better to treat these users as if they never existed in the first place for some of the acts they have done. Let's not give another excuse for people to become vandals. --Rob Horning 15:59, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree 100%. Delete them. --Dragontamer 23:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, i'm going to just go ahead and delete them now. If we have need of them in the future (which I doubt), we can always undelete them. Perhaps we could write it into policy somewhere that userpages of known vandals can simply be deleted? but, that's a question for another day. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaboration and Book of the Month for August

August 1st is coming up. It would be good to actually have the templates for these ready to go before the front page tips them over into redlinks. The votes are:

• Wikibooks:Book of the month/August 2006 voting
• Wikibooks:Collaboration of the Month/August 2006 voting

And the templates which need to be made are:

• Wikibooks:Book of the month/August 2006
• Wikibooks:Collaboration of the Month/August 2006

Also, I think the pages state the voting ends at midnight the first day of the month. This is kind of stupid since we could use some time to actually create the templates. Ending it a week before would make more sense.

Kellen ^T 15:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I made these. For book of the month, it's the Movie Making Manual. For collaboration, it's Reverse Engineering. Once again, the text I've written in these templates is bad. The image for RE is a breakdown of CIDR blocks, which doesn't really make any sense for RE, but it does at least show translating between binary and something meaningful. I was unsuccessful at finding anything appropriate, so that's my straw-grasping. Someone should find a better image. Whiteknight, I'm looking at you. Kellen ^T 13:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Despite what I said on your user page, I actually did go in and change the picture and the text. I wouldn't say that either of them were "bad", but the new picture is slightly more relevant (i hope). I'll look at the Moving Making Manual, and see if I can do anything to that (although I dont know much about making movies). --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transwiki redirect deletion

So with transwikis, do we need to keep the old redirects around or can we delete interim redirect pages, like Cookbook:Rice and beef soup? Kellen ^T 00:12, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I've been deleting them, as I merged them, so i'm going to say that is the correct way to do it. I dont think we need to keep around any redirects, because no books should link to a transwiki: page in the first place. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some Wikibooks on our educational DVD

Hello, I would like to inform you, that some of your Wikibooks are going to be published and distributed for free on our Xplora Knoppix 1.2 DVD. To read more about the project read here:

http://www.xplora.org/ww/en/pub/xplora/library/software/xplora___dvd_knoppix__make_sci.htm

If you send me an email address, I can forward you the preview of the DVD on our webserver.

Thanks Karl Sarnow

Sounds like an excellent project, if you ask me. I assume the wikibooks that you are using will all be in pdf format? All I would ask in return is some kind of mention of wikibooks, in an attempt to increase interest in our project, through participation in yours. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 13:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category sort enhancement request

I've made an enhancement request on the mediawiki bugtracker requesting that categories be able to set the default sort key. This would mean that instead of doing [[Category:Category name|{{PAGENAME}}]] on every single page in every single category we would just go to each category and do __SORTBYPAGENAME__ (or something similiar). This would be a huge boon for the cookbook as we have many, many categories and this would mean many, many places where we don't have to sort things by hand. Please go vote for this bug. Kellen ^T 17:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Deletion policy

There has been a suggested ammendment to the deletion policy, HERE, that would include "redirects that aren't linked to" and "redirects that follow a deprecated naming scheme" under candidates for speedy deletion. At the moment, the only redirects that specifically qualify for speedy deletion are those for which it is "unlikely that anyone will inadventently search for a page under that name". I think that the policy here should be expanded to give admins more ability to clean out useless garbage like this. I would, however, like to ask for other opinions on the matter. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting bot flag

My owner has been scouring the wiki, trying to find where he should ask that I be flagged as a bot. Can anyone point him in the right direction? --SwiftBot 22:15, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

It used to be you could request a bot flag at Requests for Adminship, but now it is stated that bots require "community concensus" before the botflag can be granted. I would suggest that you use your bot a few times to prove that it is useful and benign. you can try to make a request at WB:RFA (down at the very bottom), but no guaruntees. Also, if you release your source code so people can see what it is made of, what it does, and that it means no harm, we will feel better about it. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 22:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, thanks! --Swift 22:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subpage categories

You know how you can write links for subpages like this? [[/My subpage/]]. That extra slash on the end makes it so that you only see the basename, that is My subpage instead of /My subpage. I wish we could have something similar for categories. For instance, if I put a category [[Category:Bar]] on [[Foo/My subpage]], that page gets indexed under F, along with 50 other pages under [[Foo]]. I wish I could have a way of getting it automatically indexed under M without having to write something like [[Category:Bar|M]] -- Kowey 15:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a discussion somewhere ( i can't remember where) that a bug request was put in to allow a new magic word, such as __SEPARATEPAGESECTION__, or something equally verbose to be put in a category, to specify that the subpages should be automatically separated out into the subpagenames. I don't know what the status of that is. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i just found the discussion, it's no more then a few headings above this one. The bug has been requested on bugzilla by User:Kellen, and you are welcome to go show some support, and possibly even vote for it (or however things get done at bugzilla).

http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=6387

--Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 17:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks. Hope something like this goes through. It's a minor detail, but somewhat irritating if you think categories are useful -- Kowey 05:18, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naming policy - common names?

Does Wikibooks follow the Wikipedia policy of using common names? It's not made clear in Wikibooks:Naming policy. I'm assuming that we're not restricted to common names, having noticed the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter.

The reason I'm asking is that I've been making some contributions to English as an Additional Language, which is a reasonable name, but not necessarily the most common name, and before suggesting new pages, categories etc, I thought it might be good to clarify that we've made a good choice for the name. It's a tricky one, as there are so many names and different arguments... so I wanted to clarify the policy first. --Singkong2005 11:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I think there is a general preference towards using common names, but it certainly isnt a matter of policy (although perhaps it should be). These are books, not encyclopedia articals, so the requirement to use common names isn't that big a deal, so long as the title of the book adequately describes the books contents. The original author of a book (for better or worse) is granted a large amount of lattitude in naming and organizing the book as they see fit. So long as your title describes the contents of your book, and it's properly placed on a bookshelf, there shouldnt be a problem.

However, I will say that if your title of the book isn't the most common, you may consider hijacking some redirect pages, so that users can find your book even when they search for something else. Some other common names for your book might be English as a Second Language, ESL, or English as a Foreign Language. You are welcome to use all these pages as a redirect to your book, if you would like. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:12, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

There's no policy on the issue. One book which this should be discussed for is History of the United States, which to the best of my knowledge is a less common name for textbooks than United States History or even the less correct American History. I don't think Wikipedia's history page naming policy should apply in this case. This should be discussed on Wikibooks talk:Naming policy and later added into the policy. --hagindaz 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I would add here that in the publishing industry for the 20th Century, most of the book titles tend to be very simple "generic" titles, which seems to be more or less the standard that you should use here for Wikibooks. These are not encyclopedia entries that have massive cross-links all over the project, but these are book titles that are also being used for book development. Certainly a different standard should apply to a book title than for an encyclopedia entry, which has two very different goals.

In the 18th Century and earlier, very very wordy book titles were very common, sometimes being as much as a whole paragraph. Yes, there were exceptions, but you tend to see more "catchy" phrases for book titles recently.

Certainly don't apply Wikipedia rules here for this concept. The naming policy is not so much a book naming policy as a sub-module naming policy, where we do need to impose some sort of order to this project just to keep from tripping over each other's book modules. Even then, the naming of sub-modules is fairly free-form except that they do need to keep the name of the book in part of the title. --Rob Horning 06:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cologne Blue skin has a minor bug

Minor bug: There's no link to the Staff lounge or Community portal on the left (or top), for people using the Cologne Blue skin. --Singkong2005 12:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't really know how the skins are supposed to work. I do know that for people using the monobook skin, the sidebar links are editable using the protected MediaWiki:Sidebar page. I dont know if the Cologne Blue skin uses this functionality or not. Either way, I think the best place to discuss a bug like this would be at http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org . --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucrat Vote

I just wanted to let all the users here know that there is an ongoing vote for me to become a bureaucrat at Requests for Adminship. Bureaucrats have significant responsibility, and it would be a good idea for all community members to at least be aware of the vote in progress, if not to participate in it.

In addition to that, there are outstanding votes for some other users to become administrators, and ongoing votes for the "CheckUser" privledges as well. All of these issues are very important to wikibooks, so i suggest that all users come in and join the discussion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old computer graphics course

I found material from a now closed computer graphics course online that may be helpful for creating a wikiversity course. 14 Labs dealing with the gimp, opengl, and mainly blender. unfortunatly the blender tutorials use a very old version of blender and the gimp since the course was closed in 2004. The gimp doesn't seem to have changed much, blender has though.

Well if someone wants to use it and ask for permission the link is CPSC 324 Computer Graphics --V2os 22:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Policy cleanup

I have just been perusing Wikibooks:Policies_and_guidelines and would like to propose that:

• Wikibooks:Editing disputes policy - proposal for dealing with edit disputes

be moved to "rejected" status.

• Wikibooks:Game textbook guidelines
• Wikibooks:How-to textbook guidelines

be moved to the "guidelines" section of Wikibooks:Policies_and_guidelines RobinH 09:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean "be", not "is/are" right? (Not nitpicking here... I'm really unclear on what you're proposing).

The How-to guidelines need work: I'll try to work on them a bit today. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 12:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK RobinH 13:22, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that's what he means. I would agree with all these motions. The editing disputes policy never had much support, and we don't really need it now. The Game textbook and the How-to guidelines should definitely be moved to become guidelines, because they are both useful, but dont require the weight of official policy. Also, I would like to remind everybody to take a look at the General voting rules policy, which is currently under discussion. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to have as much time today as I thought, but I'll keep thinking about it (doing some rather rote farm work today, so my thinking it pretty freed up). I put up an outline of the changes I'd like to make in my userspace (here), in case anyone wants to chip in. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Got some work done on it, including thoughts on the categorization of how-tos (again, here). Any thoughts? --SB_Johnny | ^talk 11:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Educational resources

I have alot of time on my hands in the next couple weeks, and I would like to start looking for some educational organizations, and other websites with free ebooks that we could start a friendship with. If we can find some websites that would be willing to advertise us, that would be good. If we could find people with ebooks that they would be willing to donate, that would be even better. If anybody knows of any such organizations, you could list them here, and I will try my hand at some correspondence. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contacting professors

There are hundreds of good quality lecture notes and textbooks made public by university professors on their respective webpages, which are not always linked to from a central location and are often difficult to discover through Google searches. I'm hopeful that Wikibooks will eventually become that central hub/repository, especiialy if it reaches Wikipedia levels of prominence. The few class projects we've had here (Managing Groups and Teams, Human Physiology, XML, Rhetoric and Composition, and maybe a few others) have all been big successes, and the recent voluntary content migrations (Basic Physics of Nuclear Medicine, Relationships/Basic Book Design, and the ICD4T books to be added) seem to indicate that we're headed in that direction.

However, at this point Wikibooks is not very well known among academic groups, and with more project awareness I'm confident that we would have a substantial increase in class projects and content donations. Can someone compose a well-written email template explaining how Wikibooks works, our goals, and the GFDL, and addressing common concerns (such as commercial use) that can be sent out to professors who have written these publicly available (usually copyrighted) textbooks and lecture notes? I suspect that most would decline to move their work here or license it under the GFDL, but they would at least be aware of our existence and some of that sctattered content would be merged here. This mathematics list could be one place to start.

I want to emphasize that the creation of unique work is our primary focus, rather than consolidation of content. With that in mind we should recognize that the secondary goal would be an important service to the reader side of Wikibooks and the 'Net. --hagindaz 23:39, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Jguk's category spree

Hi, recently I created some pages in Chemical synthesis. Soon after, User:Jguk added all the new pags to Category:Chemistry. I　commented on his user page, User talk:Jguk#Adding categories, that I had reservations about the usefulness of this practice.

Nearly two days (and 500 edits on Jguk's behalf) later, there was still no answer, so I posted another message, User talk:Jguk#Please stop adding categories, on the user page.

I'm fairly new on this project. Is this common behaviour here? If not, can someone give him a nudge?

Also: can someone answer my question regarding whether there has been any discussion regarding category guidelines? --Swift 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

It is considered good practice for every page to be properly categorized. Every page should belong to at least one category, as a matter of organization. Now, If you do not want your book's pages to be in Category:Chemistry, then I recommend that you create a new category, such as Category:Chemical Synthesis, or something similar, for use in the book. User:Jguk can be a juggernaught when it comes to adding categories to pages, so for future reference, be prepared to add your own category if you don't want him to do it for you. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 00:02, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"It is considered good practice". Am I correct to assume that this has been discussed somewhere, or is it more of a silent agreement?

Thanks, I just didn't want to clash with Jguk. He seems a bit ... ehemm ... enthusiastic. --Swift 01:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it has been discussed anywhere, no. But it is good practice as it provides a semi-automated navigational method that can be distinct from hand-maintained list pages. You can start at Category:Main page and work down from there. Also, if similar books cover similar territories, the categories make it easier to find related pages. Kellen ^T 11:22, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm actually fairly well aware of the rationale, function and benefits of categories. What I was asking about was whether there had been a discussion on how categorization should be conducted. There are several ways, and (I believe) the project as a whole would benefit greatly if it were done in a coordinated manner. A guideline touching on this could, for example, mention whether a page should be in a category if it is also in its subcategory; and if a page should be in a category if its parent page/the book it is in is as well.

These may have obvious answers to some, but I was tought that even in such cases it is a good idea to discuss the matter in a group to get critisisms, other ideas, other questions and differing viewpoints on the solutions. --Swift 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

He does bring up a good point, however, that nowhere do we really discuss the use of categorizations, or the rationale for categorizing every single page. This is worth some mention, i think, either in the help pages or as an official guideline. I don't think we need to make this a policy, however. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:41, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think a policy would be far too constricting for (what I believe are) very different needs for categorization (depending on the book, its scope, the field, other pages/books in that category, etc.). I would however like to see a discussion on this and a possible guideline come out of it.

I'm off for almost a weeks trip tomorrow without my computer so I won't get around to doing anything soon. If someone goes and starts this discussion, I'd appreciate it if they'd drop a note on my talk page. Otherwise, I'll look into it on my own when I get back. Have a good weekend, everyone! --Swift 10:53, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been highly critical of User:Jguk and his catigorization of all of Wikibooks. I'm not going to openly revert and stop him from doing this, but I don't think it is strictly necessary and I have politely let him know my attitude about this. It has not been policy in the past to do these categorizations throughout Wikibooks, nor do I think it is good practice. At the same time, it is also something easily reverted by somebody who goes through (an ordinary editor can do this) and remove all of the category additions. I don't think somebody should be blocked or have administrative action taken against them for doing either one. If anybody gets blocked for removing these categories, please let me know, and I will scream bloody heck if it happens. Be civil and it is something that also should be decided on a book by book basis of the participants involved, and avoid edit wars about this topic. --Rob Horning 21:20, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can we use other free (as in beer) sites as part of a curriculum?

How exactly can we use resources that are free (as in beer) but not open-source?

Is it acceptable to link from the modules, and even treat them as part of the curriculum? This would consist of linking from a Wikibooks page, not replicating or infringeing copyright in any way.

I think this is a good idea, at least on a temporary basis, in books that haven't yet developed to a point where they're better than the external material. However, I want to check if it conflicts with Wikibooks policies,or the feelings of other editors. --Singkong2005 04:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

To be completely honest, I have no idea what the term "free as in beer" means. That's besides the point, however, i think i see what you are asking. Material can be put on this server if it is devoid of valid copyright, if it is released into the public domain, if it is released under the GDFL, or in a few other specific circumstances. However, I don't think that there is any restriction to linking to outside sources that are under a different licensing scheme then we use. It might be worthwhile to note, however, that your links to those external resources do not constitute an endorsement. --Whiteknight(talk) (projects) 12:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

See w:Gratis versus Libre if you're interested. --hagindaz 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Treating other resources as part of the curriculum is encouraged in Wikiversity, a separate project designed for the creation of curricula (Wikibooks is only for the creation of books).

In Wikibooks, other sites should only be used to supplement a book and should go in an "external links" section or page. A reader should be able to print out a book and learn from it without any other help. A Wikipedia article could have been considered complete with only a link to Encarta's site, but that's not the point of the project. --hagindaz 22:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the very helpful replies. btw, "free as in beer" just means no cost, as opposed to "free as in speech" - as explained in the link posted by Hagindaz. Wikimedia projects are free in both senses. --Singkong2005 04:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Self Interest and Social Behavior

I have been teaching a multi-disciplinary course on decision theory and game theory through applications in all of the social sciences (including biology and philosophy when they consider social behavior). Starting last year, I started constructing a book for the course in a wiki version called twiki. The book has several features that no existing text teaching game theory has: it involves applications in all of the social sciences plus biology and philosophy, offering a common paradigm for them all; it trys to teach through specific applications to the abstract rather than the other way around; much of this material is appropriate for freshmen and sophomore science or humanities majors that want a wide view of the social sciences, as long as they've had one calc course; it is also appropriate for more advanced students throughout the social sciences; and to have sufficient material that would satisfy all of these groups, it's likely to be too damn big for print. You can see it at http://apps.nitle.org/wiki/bin/view/Gametheory/WebHome.

Clearly, I have added material to the wiki, but also all of my students. (A wiki is great for a group project, because saving revisions shows what each individual's contribution was. Really cuts down on group members choosing to be free riders.) While the structure of the existing wiki is close to what it should be, the wiki still needs much more content (maybe a third of the intended topics for the book have reasonable modules--somewhere around 500 now). I have intended to continue this wiki when teaching the course again this fall, and in the 2007-2008 academic year I intend to visit elsewhere and have faculty and grad students at a major research univerisity contribute to it as well.

You have an easier-to-use version with Wikiwyg, you have a more knowledgeable technical staff, and my wiki project seems to have all the same goals as your Wikibooks. I believe that it would be better for all involved if the material in the latest revisions of the modules in twiki were transferred to the Wikibooks area.

I have two main questions:

1. Does this material appear appropriate for Wikibooks?

2. If so, could someone help to translate and transfer this material from twiki to Wikibooks?

Gametheoryman 22:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

From an initial glance, I don't see a problem with this being added as a Wikibook, and certainly is very similar to major significant Wikibooks that are advertised on the main page. As a textbook on game theory, it is a very useful set of content. I would love to see this added to Wikibooks.

Perhaps the most important issue you need to deal with is if the participants of that Wiki don't mind having the content relicensed to the GFDL. I don't see that as a huge issue, but you apparently allowed each contributor to retain copyright on the content they added. If this is something that has been discussed with your students and there doesn't appear to be any resistance to the idea, or if they granted to you as the professor a "blank check" regarding the ability to relicense the content, there wouldn't be a problem.

Unfortunately, as it stands, unless you have the full support from your students to move this content here it would have to be considered a copyright violation and would have to be deleted from Wikibooks if it were added without this permission being granted. In theory, even one of your former students who made even a minor contribution could sue the Wikimedia Foundation on copyright infringement and force us to remove this book if this permission isn't given. It is precisely for this reason that we insist that all contributions to Wikibooks be made available under the GFDL, as that provides a common agreement for how this information can be copied in the future. It protects not only us as editors, but it also protects anybody else who would be using this information in the future, like a textbook publisher.

As far as the technical issues of moving the content from the Twiki to Wikibooks, I don't see it being that difficult. It is tedious, but there are some scripts that have been written that would automate the process somewhat, or some custom programming could be done to help make the task easier. Even being done by hand wouldn't take that long to complete, and I think there could be some volunteers that could be found to help with that task. The significant issue is the text content itself, and that is valuable enough to justify taking the time to do things right. --Rob Horning 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

No students were ever expecting copyright, only acknowledgement with any significant contribution. This I intend to continue for any contributors. Except for the most established faculty, credit for good work is worth a good deal in terms of better schools, better recommendations, better evaluations--all of which mean better future salary. I intend to exploit this motive here, and I expect that you too should exploit this further with all of your books aimed at a university audience.

What's the next step? -- Gametheoryman 14:39, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree in theory with what you have said here, I just want this to be made clear, however. Assuming copyright has been granted has landed a large number of educators in very hot water, and we need to also make extra sure that nothing has been plagurized either. I can't emphasis that enough. This website requires that all contributions be released under the GFDL, and anything not available with that can't be added. If even just one of your students out of principle decides to be a pain in the behind, it could make this a little difficult. Fair-use laws don't apply here, as this is a full electronic copy of the original content.

BTW, for myself, I always made sure that I copyrighted all of my homework assignments (particularly for computer science assignments). It made some of my professors a little upset, as they assumed copyright on all homework turned into them under some archiac academic common law practice. I've also seen professors claim credit for work their students have written and in turn published that content in professional journals with only minor cleanup and reformatting. I'm not claiming that you are doing so here, but I want to make it very clear that copyright must be granted explicitly according to current copyright laws in most western European countries and North America. Besides risking this project, it also means that a textbook using "tainted" copyright content has a dubious future that may be challenged in the future.

That said, I think publishing this book on this website can only do good for both this project and your textbook. I hope that we can work out a way to make it happen. I also hope you understand the caution that I am expressing here, which is based on experience with content of this nature. --Rob Horning 06:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

This reminds me of another current project here. the Human Physiology book is currently being written as a collaborative effort of a class of undergraduate nursing students. The project is being overseen by the teacher of the class. Looking through this book, I think this would definately be a good fit for wikibooks. I would love to help with this project, and I can begin creating pages and transferring content over as early as monday (I have no work on monday, and am going to be spending upwards of 8-10 hours straight in a computer lab). As for "what's the next step", I think that we can pick out a name for your book. I think tha that there may already be a book about game theory, so we could either merge your content into that existing book (which i think is in very bad shape), or we could introduce your book under a different name, and then merge the other book into yours at a later point. Also, your book already has a good organizational structure, so we can duplicate that here, or we can come up with something different. Once we get alot of the material transferred over, we can work on reformatting the text to use our formatting, and we can create all sorts of navigational aides and templates for use with the book. Perhaps the most time-consuming parts are going to be translating the mathematical formulae to use our LaTeX format, and uploading images to our server for use in the book. I have been interested in making some contributions on this topic in the future, so I am very excited and willing to help you with the transition. Let me know what you need and when you would like to start. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

PS, the link to the other game theory book that i mentioned is: Game Theory. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Wow, interesting book! I'm afraid I can't add much on the subject, but I'll be hapy to read and copyedit for grammar and spelling! --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I created the main page at: Self Interest and Social Behavior, following the original title of this book. I can begin moving over content ASAP, assuming the offer to donate the material still stands. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I sent an email to the primary author (as listed on that site) requesting confirmation. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 14:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Haha, I should have mentioned, I sent him an email as well! I hope he doesnt think it is spam or harassment or anything. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I have been communicating with the author via email, and I just received final permission to start transferring over the written content to our server. I will not be uploading the images, because he still needs to determine the copyright status on them. I am going to transfer over the first chapter tonight as a test of concept, and--if it looks good--I will begin transfering over the rest of it immediately thereafter. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What's the progress report on this? I'm looking foreward to reading through it (and correcting spelling and grammar... should be both informative and theraputic). SB_Johnny | ^talk 18:31, 9 August 2006 (UTC)