Wikibooks:Staff lounge/Archive 25

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Policy of the week: codifying templates

I'd like to get some discussion on certain templates used for new page patrolling, chapter and book merges, etc., in the hopes of smoothing out these processes.

First, User:Darklama has been doing some really interesting experiments with time-sensitive templating, and I'd be interested to see what people thing about adjusting the "qr" templates to use this technology. What the change would do is automagically add a queried page to Category:Candidates for speedy deletion after a certain number of days have passed since the last time the page was edited. This would make the template more useful, since it could be used to mark up particularly stubby stubs (which are hopefully on the watchlists of the stubs' creators).

The point of the qr tags is to have some middle ground between {{delete}} and {{vfd}} which gives the author a chance to build up the page a bit, without having to go through the arduous and/or bitter process of a VfD discussion. By making the template automagic, the process would now have a beginning and end, since after 7 or 14 days without further edits, the page would just become a candidate for speedy.

Second, I'm going to make a template for marking obvious "wikipedia dumps", which were copied here without contribution histories. Now that we have the import tool, we shouldn't be allowing this to happen anymore, since it's bad news as far as copyrights go. A few of us have been working on Wikibooks:Transwiki Rules, which probably needs to be split soon into "Transwiki Policy" and "Help:Transwiki". One of the policy points should be to simply ban copy-paste transwikis in favor of import.

Third, we need to work up some policy about page mergers and tags for them. Over the past several weeks there have been a lot of mergers in certain areas (such as the C++ books), and the pages that were merged from should be marked as "now merged into", so that the edit histories can be merged into the destination page (again, a copyright issue). It's actually very easy for an admin to do history mergers, so it's much better to have a template that marks pages as needing history merges, rather than marking them for speedy deletion. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, in the absense of other comments I think that the qr template is very good indeed. It allows a compromise (as said above) between speedy and VfD - I feel this should be a proper template. --Herby talk thyme 19:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

As you post a Policy of the week please check if the prev. Policy of the week discussion is over and archive it. Txs --Panic 17:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GOOFED UP SEARCH TOOL on international Wikibooks page

When www.wikibooks.org is typed in and one comes to the page with the logo surrouned by the modules in different languages, if "mathematics" or "art" is typed into the search function at the bottom of the page, the user is redirected to Wikipedia! JBogdan 18:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

That is a little weird! that probably shouldn't happen, i think. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:45, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Try: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Www.wikibooks.org_template --83.70.110.223 08:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think that what happens is that the search tool searches wikibooks first, and if it doesn't find a matching artical, it searches wikipedia instead? If we create a redirect so that Mathematics points to the math bookshelf or something, i dont think it should go to wikipedia. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
This is a side effect of pulling the portal page off of en.wikibooks. Don't say I didn't warn everybody that there might be possible side effects that needed to be worked out. --Rob Horning 16:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks talk:Profanity

I would like to move this proposal to {{policy}} soon, if there are no specific objections. One objection that has come up previously was to change the word "Profanity" to some other word, such as "obscenity" or "offensive". I have been against the term "offensive", because I feel that it is an arbitrary word, and that small minority groups of people could declare one thing to be "offensive" when it really isn't in general. User:Swift, however, feels that both "obscene" and "profane" terms are too specific, and that they carry particular connotations that aren't desirable for our use here. User:Swift prefers "offensive" as a blanket term. I would also like to point out that wikipedia uses the word "profanity" in it's policy: wikipedia:Wikipedia:Profanity.

I would like to get some community discussion on this matter. Wikibookians have typically been against profanity in usernames and page names in the past, so this proposal wouldn't actually change the status-quo here, it would only make the de facto things that we have been doing in the past a formal part of our policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice suggestions but what exactly is 'obscene' and 'offensive'? Words are very powerful weapons and even something that's not considered to be 'obscene' or 'offensive' could cause offense. Page names should only contain possibly offensive words if it's immediately relevent to the subject of the page. User names should not be offensive or ambiguous (with several possible meanings of looking too similar to existing user names). I have no problem with profanity unless it causes offense to an individual or group of people. Either way, obscene is probably the best words to use but it should be defined clearly in whatever way is agreed. Xania 21:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't like the thought of a policy, censorship isn't ever good. I think that we should recommend that profanity and offensive language not be used unless necessary and if someone happens to run accross some unneeded profanity ask the author to change it. I do agree with the policy of nothing offensive directed directly towards a person or group. 71.227.40.127 15:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't think anybody want's censorship, but there is a difference between profanity that is used in an academic way (which should be perfectly acceptable), and profanity that is used excessively, and with intent to disrupt. The idea behind this policy is not censorship, but instead it is an attempt to make wikibooks hospitable, and acceptable for readers from many age-groups and backgrounds.
These types of words and phrases can be harmful to some groups of people, so we do need some kind of policy to ensure that one group of people cannot verbally persecute other groups of people on wikibooks. However, we also need to ensure that one small minority cannot declare certain topics to be "offensive", at the expense of acceptable information here on wikibooks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:38, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism/protection query

Just reverted vandalism to School of Mathematics:Course guide. As it has been moved to Wikiversity would this and any similar pages be worth protecting at some level? One less place for vandals to play? --Herby talk thyme 15:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikiversity administrators have requested that we do not protect these pages, because sometimes they need to fix the redirects (they use a bot for this, and it is not an admin bot). Once Wikiversity clears the "Beta" stage (late February, I think), we'll probably just delete most of them. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
No problem & thanks for the info --Herby talk thyme 15:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next previous links

I find these books very hard to read for more than page or two because I keep having to go back to find the next page. there are no next and previous links. Is there any chance these could be added automatically?

Some books do have these links, and you could help add them to additional books, if you would like. There really isn't an automatic way to add these links, the software doesn't allow for it. All the links that do exist must be added manually. What book are you reading? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Annotated texts and "narrative media"

In response to a comment on WB:VFD, I have added some additional text to the annotated text guidelines proposal. The new text allows for the inclusion of annotated versions of other narrative media including:

  • Books (always included)
  • Videos, TV Shows, and motion pictures
  • Songs and musical albums
  • Narrative videogames (not strategy guides!)
  • Comic books

The idea behind this is that it is possible to discuss academically these topics from pop culture, and it is also possible to produce a "companion guide" to help further understand such peices. Here are some things that I think can be included:

  • Companion annotations to videogames. These guides can include information about the fictional universe of the game, information about characters, explanation and analysis of the plot, etc. Notice that this is not a strategy guide for the game, and such annotated texts should probably not discuss game-strategy or techniques at all. Also, some videogames are simply not conducive to such annotations ("Contra" is a good example), but some games probably are ("Half Life", or "Final Fantasy").
  • Companion annotations to songs and musical albums. These guides can include information on the history of the band and biographies of the band members. It can also include a listing of the song lyrics, along with necessary discussion and analysis of the lyrics to improve reader understanding. Also, songs have musical characteristics besides the lyrics that can be creative and which could be explained for the reader. These should not be listings of lyrics and a promotion of the band ("Led Zeppelin Totally Rocks!!!")

I would like to get some comments on this, because I feel like this will go a long way to help separate some things that don't belong here. Also, I think this will help to answer some questions about how video-game related topics can be made to fit into the wikibooks environment. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good work. It'll be good to have a clear policy about video games. I can see the usefulness of some "guides" or "companions" but the majority of what we've been seeing recently are just strategy guides. Is there any way of getting this useful information to the authors 'before' they write their page to save on having to delete it later? Xania 21:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
The majority of the video-game related books that we do have are strategy guides, not annotated texts, and therefore should be deleted. There are a few possible exceptions, and that is the reason for editing this text. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Is there a clear distinction between orginal research compared with annotated text? Is orginal research allowed if it in the form of annotated text or includes annotated text? This proposed policy, along with the Wikibooks:Original research proposed policy, seem to be be at ends with each other. Perhaps both proposals need to be merged as one? That or clarification is needed. I don't really understand either proposal. I also don't understand where if one exists the line is drawn between what books do and don't belong here to well. I assume other people have simlar problems since lots of the same types of books keep coming up for Votes for Deletion. Wikibooks:Textbooks, Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks and Wikibooks:Inclusion criteria/Proposal also seem like attempts to clarify and explain what does and doesn't belong dividing people's efforts to explain even further. --darklama 00:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The two i think are completely different subjects. The Original Research guidelines simply prohibit using wikibooks as a forum for developing new ideas. The annotated guideline attempts to show how to make an annotated text acceptable. Annotated texts are not automatically "original research", nor are they more susceptable to becoming so then any other type of book. An annotated text is essentially a "learning companion" book, or a book that you read at the same time as you read another book, in order to get more enjoyment/information/understanding from the other book. All I've done here is extend the definition to include other non-book media as acceptable sources for annotated texts. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Begining of Wikibooks:Annotated texts states An annotated text contains two elements: 1. An original primary source text and Wikibooks:Original research says Original research refers to "unproven facts" or "theories that have not been subject to peer review". This suggests to me that the two are about the same subject or at least overlap, "orginal text" is text that has not been "peer reviewed " and may contain "unproven facts" right? Of course by submiting contents here it will probably end up being "peer reviewed" and facts corrected. BTW I wasn't trying to suggest annontated texts are automatically original research, just that my interpretation and understanding of the proposals as they are now suggest that they may indeed be the same thing some times. --darklama 02:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
No, no. I think you are misreading (or at least misinterpreting) the text of the annotated texts proposal. The "original source texts" are previously-existing written works, such as existing fiction novels, or other existing books. For instance, the William Shakespear's Works book includes the original plays and sonnets written by shakespear, in addition to explanatory text about the plays and sonnets. In this sense, "original" doesnt mean "new", but instead refers to "prexisting versions written by the original author". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok. So maybe the proposal could be improved to make clearer this distinction then? Such as by either removing the use of the word "original" or by defining what "original" means in terms of the annotated texts proposal. --darklama 03:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Forum/w/index.php

Hard to know how to describe this but pages with this and similar names have had various random postings in over the past week or so. At first I thought it was accidental but now I'm not sure and I have no idea the best way to deal with it (I've speeedy this one) - a heads up as much as anything --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's apparently some sort of forum-crawling spambot... it's been a problem on wikiversity too. It would be a good idea to try and run a checkuser and see if we can narrow down the IP range, because it won't be stopping any time soon. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
I blocked 64.60.142.202 for one month. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New book

I'm thinking of starting a Wikibook about the history of the European Union. Is such a book within the confines of Wikibooks? Or would this kind of thing be more suited to Wikipedia?

That would definately be acceptable material here. I think we already have some history books about europe, although i dont know how modern any of them are. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template double inclusion

I found something that I don't know about templates, so i might as well ask here. I have a situation where I have navigation templates included on every page in a book. I am then transcluding all the pages from the book into the print version. What I would like would be to not have the navigation templates included in the print version. I tried using:

{{#ifeq: {{SUBPAGENAME}} | Print version | | ...}}

And that worked fine for a while, but now I have multiple print versions for the book, and they all can't be named the same thing (unless i use a terribly complicated hierarchical naming scheme, which I am trying to avoid). Is there any way that I can have a template include itself once, but not include itself when it's host page is transcluded? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:50, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, I have tried using the format:
<includeonly><noinclude></includeonly> ... <includeonly></noinclude></includeonly>
But that causes the templates not to appear at all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:51, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Umm, <noprint>? --SB_Johnny | talk 23:05, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you could use a mix of <includeonly> and subst to delay substition until inclusion inside the template and so you end up with something like {{#ifeq:{{<includeonly>subst:</includeonly>SUBPAGENAME}}|{{SUBPAGENAME}}| ...}}. The idea to cause SUBPAGENAME to get replaced with a fixed name by using subst but delay it until after inclusion for it to happen and then compare it to SUBPAGENAME again but this one not remaining constant. --darklama 23:41, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
The <noprint> directive will cause the template not to print, but that will not prevent the templates from showing up on the print version, and it also doesnt stop the templates from appearing when I convert the print version to PDF format. I'll try darklama's idea now (because it's so crazy it just might work!). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Nope, Darklama's idea doesn't work. The problem is that in the double-inclusion, both the {{SUBPAGENAME}} variables will evaluate to be the same thing (the name of the second page it's included in). I think what i'm going to have to do is change the page names to all have the same SUBPAGENAME ("Print version"), and use a hierarchical naming scheme to separate out the pages. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok apparently for this to work (I just tested it in my User space) you will need to subst the template so you will need at least another layer of difference between the navigation template. So you can in the navigation template to do something like {{subst:template}}. If your interested in seeing what I mean check out Template/nodouble, Template/nodouble/test and Template/nodouble/test2, in my userspace. --darklama 03:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Allowing quizzes?

Hello,

I was thinking it would be really useful for Wikibooks to have an extension that allowed the easy creation of quizzes. This would work really well for language textbooks, as well as many others I imagine.

A m:Quizzes extension exists, but it might need more work before the developers would consider installing it here. You can see an example quiz here (unfortunately you will need to create an account first). It's very easy to use, multiple choice leading from Q to Q, and at the end it gives you a summary of which ones you got right and wrong. (I think I would prefer to know the result straight away after each question, but I guess it's a matter of personal preference.)

Anyway, has anything like this been proposed before? Does anyone else think it would be a good idea? --pfctdayelise 08:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block is different

Block now has the option "Automatically block IP addresses used by this user". Anyone know what this is about? --SB_Johnny | talk 12:22, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

As best I can tell, it will enable us to put an IP block on a signed-in vandal. So if a vandal is signed in, and we block with this option, the IP address that the vandal was using (which is normally only visible to a checkuser) get's blocked as well. Also, that block extends to all IP addresses that have been used by the same user. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
As a note to all admins, you should only use this option in the case of the most severe sockpuppet vandals only, because it has the potential to block multiple IP addresses. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not sure how I feel about this. Does this block all accounts using a particular IP? Does it let us know which IP? What happens if someone gets collaterally blocked, and we can't tell what IP was blocked? --SB_Johnny | talk 17:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CommonsTicker?

Do we want one? It's kind of like a project watchlist, keeping track of changes to commons files that are used on wikibooks.

m:CommonsTicker

--SB_Johnny | talk 12:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I would have to look through the SL archives, but somebody did propose to get a commons ticker previously, but the deal never went through. I think the user who proposed it became inactive. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:46, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Other opinions please

Browsing round I came across quite an organised start of a book - Free Direct Instruction Curriculum and Training. The word "free" always worries me so I looked at little further. There are a lot of links to what is and isn't copyright in the world. It looks almost too polished? I'm new - other opinions would be useful, I guess it's me but? --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Do a google test if you suspect copyright infringement, otherwise, let it be. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
I confess I had looked for something a little more helpful from people more knowledgeable than me --Herby talk thyme 08:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a class project, so the chapters are naturally going to be "written to impress". --SB_Johnny | talk 17:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - I live and learn & life is sooo interesting! --Herby talk thyme 18:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Untagged images

In September, 2006 it was discovered that Wikibooks has somewhere over 3,000 images without licence tags. We probably have even more now.

Hosting these images on our server without licence tags violates our copyrights.

I'd like to propose the following remedy:

1. Alter the css so that the following message appears on every wikibooks page:

Notice: if you have downloaded images to wikibooks in the past, please check this page to make sure none of them are listed as having no licence information. Any page loaded before November 1, 2006 that does not have a licence tag will be deleted without further warning.

2. Start deleting in 7 days, possibly requesting a steward to help if someone has a bot.

--SB_Johnny | talk 13:17, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you, the legal problems that these unlicensed images cause are dangerous. I would suggest, perhaps, a different wording of the warning (to be less verbose):
Warning: All unlicensed images uploaded to wikibooks before November 1, 2006 are going to be deleted. Please see the list of unlicensed images for information about what images will be deleted.
Beyond that, i think it's a good idea, and we definately need to do something about this problem (I'm going to go back through my records, and ensure that all the images that i've uploaded are tagged). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:42, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
You can just check that linked page under your username to identify any problems :). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, sorry: use this link to see the list by username in alphabetical order. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:16, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Or this:
Warning: All unlicensed images uploaded to wikibooks before November 1, 2006 are going to be deleted. Please see Wikibooks:WikiProject:Image Cleanup for information about what images will be deleted.

OK, figured out how to do change the sitenotice (Mediawiki:Sitenotice) :). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:45, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I say you post the message soon (or now, if you want), and then we can take a little bit of time with sorting out the details. The images have been here for a while now, and I don't think it is a matter that we should rush unnecessarily. Once we post the message, we can probably take about 2-3 weeks before we finally delete everything (which will also give us time to find a bot that can do the whole process). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Will do. If anyone can do a bit of editing on Wikibooks:WikiProject:Image Cleanup to make it plainer (step-by-step for what users should do if they have uploadded untagged images), that would be great (I have to go work in the freezing-cold woods now). --SB_Johnny | talk 15:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
Done and Done. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:15, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why, for the love of God....

Why are the books on these pages so badly formatted? Why can we not have a "one big html-page" format for those who would like to save the book for offline work. This makes for much easier searches within one's browser. Seriously!! I have tried to use wget to retrieve, only to find that the servers refuse to allow me to download pages . When I try to save manually from within my browser, I lose images that are integral to understanding the topics.

Sounds like a browser problem to me, I can (and have) used wget and my web browser to download entire books before. Also, when the entire content of a book is included in a single page, we call that a "print version". Some books have them, some do not. If you find a book that does not have a print version, and you would like it to have one, you are more then welcome (infact encouraged) to write it yourself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remote Viewing/Pr02

Just marked as a speedy - soapbox type. However I am pretty sure I've marked it so recently and it has been deleted (no time to look at logs) so maybe delete, create, protect? My 0.02c --Herby talk thyme 11:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I see this is VfD's now which is fine. However the same IP has made other edits in this book which have been reverted by others as well as myself - a heads up --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, if a delete tag is removed or a page is recreated after speedy (and without a vfd), it's better to bring it up there. It's similar with prod, db, and "hang on" at wikipedia, just not as formal. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:WikiProject:Image Cleanup

We are trying to start an initiative to delete all the old, unlicensed images that have been uploaded to wikibooks. It is against our copyright policy to host unlicensed images on this server, and technically we should have been deleting these images all along. However, we haven't had the manpower to properly patrol all the old unlicensed images, and now we have over 3000 of them that need to be dealt with.

Therefore, we have enlisted the help of some bots, especially from users on commons who have dealt with this kind of problem before. Hopefully, by the end of the month we will be able to delete all these old images. Here is a list of the users with the most untagged images:

309 Riaan 
294 Barsathi 
98 Karl Wick 
88 Mkn 
78 Norman Weiner 
69 Leptictidium 
53 Jimregan 
44 Marshman 
34 Flonejek 
32 Wanderer 
31 H Padleckas 
31 Ldog187 
29 Bootaleg 
29 FerKo 
28 Mrich 
27 Abc123 
27 Filare 
27 Osxrules 
25 Antme 
25 Spiderworm 
24 Henrikmk 
24 Get-back-world-respect 
24 Patrik 
24 Llvoklojl 
23 Deviance99 
22 1983 
22 Magnus Manske 
21 Robbyjo 
21 JR 
20 Alex S 
20 Kashkhan 
20 Perl 
20 Totophe64

For a complete list, see this link: Unlicensed Image Tool.

We will do what we can to help, but unlicensed images will be deleted from wikibooks starting at the end of this month. There will probably not be any further warnings on this subject. I personally have a bot that can mass-tag images if you would like, and there are other bots in existance as well that can help with this, if you have alot of images that need to be tagged. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:59, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Darkcora

I know talk space is kind of private but - appropriate or not? --Herby talk thyme 19:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If it were a different user writing that on the talk page, it would be a cut-and-dry case of vandalism. Since the user seems to have defaced his own talk page, I don't quite know what the policy is, so I'm going to send him a message. Thanks for the heads-up. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:24, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I've checked around, and this doesnt appear to be a doppleganger of a legitimate user on another project. I left a note for this person to remove that text, but the username hasn't been used for any other edits since I made that request. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:35, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks talk:Image use policy

I would like to move to make the image use policy official. I've read this proposal over again tonight, and there is nothing in this proposal that is different from the way we currently handle images. I know there is some talk that we should make some changes, but until we do get around to making changes, we should still have a valid policy on the books about how we deal with images. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Views on rules on editing books

I came across Democracy Project. It states that Contributors to the Democracy Project's Open Source Consititution can only make changes if they are allowed the right to vote at the time of their visit to the Project.

I guess this is not enforceable in a virtual world but the spirit strikes me as a bit adrift and could lead to argument? --Herby talk thyme 13:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be trying to restrict who can edit beyond what the GFDL allows, which I'm sure isn't allowed here. After looking at the page, it also seems to be suggestings it may involve a theoritical experment in an area that is original research which I also don't think is accepted here. However it has only been here since yesterday, so it may be better to give it time and to {{welcome}} him or her and try to point him or her in the right direction, rather then condimming the book and biting the new user. I'll go do the welcoming bit right now. --darklama 14:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, darklama they are restricting Wikibooks functions not the GFDL, even if that part of the text does not get any protection from the GFDL it doesn't break it (but it is clear that the author doesn't understand the license), I'll go a step further and will alter that line.--Panic 17:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info & help - appreciated --Herby talk thyme 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Hi darklama and Herby. Not sure if I added your names correctly, as I just began using Wikibooks yesterday. What I've proposed with the Democracy Project is a living artistic experiment that explores what would happen to the US Constitution were it open to change by all rather than legislation by just a few. However, as you know, in the original Constitition the right to vote was limited. Therefore, I felt it made sense to begin the Open Source Constitution in similar fashion. However, I would personally like to see all people be able to update and refine the Open Source Constitution over time. So I invite either of you to jump in and edit the portion of the Open Source Constitution that restricts voting rights. Altering that text will effectively achieve the same result as changing the text in the introduction and would further the objective of the Democracy Project experiment. If either of you know how to place this Wikibook on the modern art bookshelf (or performance art bookshelf), I'd appreciate that as well. Have a nice day! And thanks for being the first to participate in the Democracy Project.--Mchogan 08:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Hello User:Mchogan. Unfortunately, Wikibooks is not a place for the creation of Original research, and therefore your project is against our policy and could be subject to deletion. However, I don't think anybody here would say that your book doesn't have some value, and therefore I would like to give you opportunity to move your content to a place that would be not only more suitable, but certainly more supportive. I suggest you move your book to Wikiversity, a place where online learning and collaborative research is allowed and encouraged. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who are the final arbiters of Wikibooks content

I hope the audience reading this will be wider than I think but I'm guessing it will consist of (active) admins plus a handful of users who are interested beyond the bounds of their specialist book(s). Over the past week on RC patrol (& on the evidence of reverts I have been the only regular one reviewing changes) I have become familiar with a far wider range of wikibooks and their authors. This has given me some feel for what is going on on a day to day basis as I have followed a number of edits (rather than merely previewing them) and then followed some links. I am unsure how many of the staff here (anyone who is following this I count as "staff") are aware of the content of some books.

I now find that it is suggested that the editors of the books be asked about the content (yes I am referring to links but not solely that). The editor will consider their work ok by and large - if they don't they would probably not have contributed it. For marked duff stuff (copyvio, speedy's) it gets the attention of an admin. For VfD it gets "staff" approval or rejection (I'm guessing VfD is watched by the same people who watch this!).

Personally I think WB's policy to avoid policies is endearing (I like this place for a number of reasons and to me the "casualness" is better than WP's rather formal approach) but unrealistic. However I do feel that review by staff of difficult issues (whatever they are) is a good approach. I guess something similar to VfD to allow passing editors to bring their concerns to a wider body seems worthwhile to me - and we will all learn from it and hopefully make Wikibooks even better.

Examples I hear you cry - ok there are a number of pages about "social skills", the vast majority contain no links so why does this one Guide to Social Activity/Courtship#External Links. It's been marked for "cleanup" and "to do" for a considerable time but other than IPs adding links very little has happened. Another one I came across yesterday was Blender 3D/Tutorial Links List. You cannot convince me that offering such an array of links can possibly serve the reader well - a google link/a dmoz link/6 or so - fine - but all these?

On a "safety" note. In my time with the Spam project at WP I tested virtually every link I removed. I surf using FF, No Script extension, McAfee site Advisor and a fairly well filled HOSTS file - some site are genuinely undesirable & I believe we owe it to more naive readers to ensure (as far as possible) that the links are at least as harmless as possible. Thanks for the attention - I'll keep quiet for a bit <g> --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to start by go with trying to answer your topic question, with what I think the answer is. Arbiters don't come into play unless there is a dispute and even then should be avoided. In most cases the decision making process should be used. "High impact" decisions are the only exception in which a formal vote is needed and in which case the Wikibooks community acts as the arbiters. I think avoiding a "high impact" decision can be reached by being bold and just deleting the inapproperiate links if you don't think they should be there and if someone disagrees they will add them back. I believe assuming good faith is also an important part of any decision made to delete links, rather then assuming bad faith and deleting all links until someone can justify it which seems to be the WP way of thinking. (If you can't tell, I'm not a wikipedian) --darklama 15:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Excellent comments herby, i'll see what I can do to answer them. First off, you have hit a nail on the head, albeit in a circuitous way: if, for the past week you have been the only person following the RC list, that's likely because you are, in fact, the only active wikibookian who has the time/motivation/energy to do it. Wikibooks is nothing like wikipedia, a fact that is good in some cases, and bad in others. Unlike wikipedia, for instance, we simply don't have a large population, and we have very little sense of "wikibooks community". Because of the lack of community, people tend to come to wikibooks when they want to make specific contributions to specific books, and they tend not to come at all otherwise. Because there is no community, and because there is no vested interest in the greater good of the project, people typically don't concern themselves with anything outside the scope of their own pet projects. To this end also, many people will watch their own books for obvious vandalism, but only a select few people concern themselves with vandalism or nonsense on a larger scale. Even I find myself spending more time working on my own books then I do working to improve the project at large.
On wikipedia, there are all kinds of people: some who are writing new content, some who are editing old content, some who are making modules conform to style, some who are monitoring for vandalism, some who are checking for linkspam, etc. Because the population of wikipedia is so large, people who are performing the same kinds of tasks can easily group together into "Projects", so that like-minded people can help each other, and reinforce themselves. On wikibooks, we simply don't have that. There aren't many people who are working on each individual project, and people who are working on the same types of things tend not to group together in any coherent way.
To address your point more directly now, there certainly are alot of pages in need of help, and there are plenty of pages that qualify as "link farms", and plenty of links that are simply spam. however, outside of the contributors to a particular book (who generally think their own contributions are good), there is no group of people who can be counted on to go through these pages and pick the gold from the garbage.
I can count on two hands the number of people who are actively working to help improve the project, and of those people, many have their own pet projects that take up alot of their time. We need more people, we need more admins, and we need a stronger sense of community here, all things that we don't have, and can't seem to find. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:09, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old VfD

Looks to me as if quite a few of these could be closed now. I'd happily do it but where a delete is the decision it would be an admin anyway. I'll markup the "survived" ones tho if it helps. The page can then be mostly archived to focus on the current ones? --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm... red links in "Completed Books" ??

Arimaa, Basic Book Design, Consciousness Studies, Handbook of Genetic Counseling, FHSST_Physics (maybe a few more) all have red links in their table of contents. I assume that "completed books" means completely completed, so I moved these books to "Well Developed, Usable Books" (from Wikibooks:Featured_books/Alphabetical_listing to Wikibooks:Featured_books#Well_developed,_usable_books) --Dragontamer 18:42, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

On wiki, a "complete" book is never actually complete in the sense of published books. A complete book really should be a resource that an instructor could use to teach a class without requireing supplemental material. To this end, a book can be complete in that sense, and still have plenty of room for addition. For instance, a book could be used to teach a single semester course, but it could easily be expanded to teach two or three semesters in that same subject. In other words, a book could be complete long before it is finished. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wiki vs. Book

I realize that these are supposed to be textbooks and hence the suggestions to limit links and so forth, but it occurs to me that there may be a way to handle it so that you don't lose what's great about the web (linking), but still maintain something that's consistent with print text. In fact, this was something a company I once worked for, did for creating the help files for their software and the software manuals, from the same source. That is, you have some sort of coding in the pages that says, "this is web-specific" and when the printable version is generated, the web-specific stuff is left out. And then you have stuff that's marked as "this is print-specific" and it's left out of the web page. I don't know if the latter is possible with wiki, but I would imagine that the former is, since I assume there's custom software for generating the print version of books... Anyway, just an idea. I'm working on the organic chemistry textbook and it would be nice to do stuff like the transcluded template at the bottom of this page in wikipedia in various places in the organic textbook. It's not very useful in a printed version, but at least in the case of organic chem, where you have a lot of inter-related subjects and categories, this sort of structure can really help navigating the wiki version. Pete 16:04, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Did you try printing something out yet? All wikilinks disappear automatically in print version. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Various wikibooks go through a revision into some form of PDF file very very late in their lifecycle. --Dragontamer 16:43, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, but you can make a PdF at any time, and the links are automatically rendered as plain text (at least they are when I make print versions). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen the print version, and I realize the links aren't underlined there, but the transcluded template thing, I guess it wouldn't look BAD, it just isn't really informative in a print version and that's what I'm thinking I'd want to exclude from a print version.Pete 17:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
I think your looking for the noprint class. Enclose your template inside a table or div for example like this <div class="noprint">...</div>. Then your template won't show up when printed. --darklama 17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Darklama, thanks, that's EXACTLY what I was looking for. --Pete 17:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

This brings up a good point, maybe we need to have a tutorial for specifically how to generate a printable version, and a PDF version, for people who are interested. I know i've created several of each (although I haven't uploaded all the PDFs i've created). This would be a great way for some of our books to really reach the next level. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:03, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help with template

Hey all. I'm trying to make a navigational template for use with the MATLAB book, kind of like the one found on the help page, problem is I can't get the text to wrap around it... does anyone know what I'm doing wrong? (I dont know anything about HTML so I'm not sure if there's a simple command for this. What I've done is what I could best discern was the same as what was in the help page, so I don't know what's different that's messing it up). The template is here, it's not finished as of yet; any help you could give would be much appreciated! (I tried to read the help but I didn't notice anything about this) Mattb112885 02:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it up a little bit, i hope this answers some of your questions. you can use CSS markup in your DIV tag to do all sorts of extra fancy stuff. Let me know if you want anything different. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you much, this will work fine! Mattb112885 04:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PDF generation of printable version

I just created a PDF of the printable version as of ~9:10 CT and was wondering if anyone wanted to host it. I was thinking the other PDF version was a bit dated, so I made another.

Thanks

Printable version of what book? We have lots of books here, many of which have printable and PDF versions. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] APDIP Book Donation

The UN APDIP has made an official public announcement about the books that it has donated to our project:

http://www.apdip.net/news/wikibooks

These books can be found at Category:APDIP Books (because I think they are on more then one bookshelf). I think that all the books are properly categorized, but I may have missed some of the books/pages.

Anybody who is interested, or who has some time available, could you look through these books really quick and make sure there are no obvious errors? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parapsychology Encyclopedia

Hello my name is Brett Turner i was wondering if i can get a FREE Catalogue of all your publishings.I am a Inventor so i need alot of material and i like your site.I was wondering if its free or if there is even a free Encyclopedia too..Can you have someone contact me on details and more good stuff..My email is Brettinventor@aol.com PS. I like going through your site the short way but can i get a contact to talk to PLEASE for my research help..Thankyou from = TURNER WORLD WIDE INVENTIONS The End............

There is, in fact, a free encyclopedia that is related to this project. it's called Wikipedia, and is quite an impressive encyclopedia and it's completely free to use. You can check out the list of all wikibooks at: Wikibooks:Alphabetical classification. I warn you thought that many of our books are still under development. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editor differences

Just noticed that the WP default editor has a few extra buttons that are not on the WB editor. Uninteresting, important, fixable - even "why"? --Herby talk thyme 15:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New buttons can be added to the editor via changes to the javascript and CSS files for the site. Administrators can make such changes, but on wikibooks we don't often make them to our own files, because I don't think there is as much desire here for the same things that people desire on wikipedia. If you can find something in particular that you absolutely want to have here on wikibooks, but that we don't currently have, let us know, and we will try to copy+paste in the necessary code. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Correct meif I'm wrong, but based on the editor that Herby told me about and that I'm now using, it appears that anyone can really customize the editorto their own tastes by simply adding the appropriate javascript totheir own skins. I guess for programmers like me, that's not as much of a trial as it would be for non-programmers, but I wouldn't be surprised if there are other tools out there like the Cacyle editor Herby turned me on to. -- Pete 17:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can think of a few, buttons for underline, subscript, superscript, big, small, strike through, line break, align left, align right, center, quote, code. Could probably use them even more then Wikipedia because book use styling a lot more then articles do. Should I perhaps turn it into a proposal for voting on? --darklama 17:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


To Pete - no this is about the basic editor - don't tell them all or they will all want one!

Xtra buttons on WP at a quick glance

  • table - and was what I was after having found a lousy help page!
  • quoted text
  • picture gallery
  • sub/super
  • line break
  • strike thro
  • redirect

Can't judge whether they are useful to all but to those not into/used to hand coding they could be good. Regards --Herby talk thyme 18:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

To darklama - happy to see a vote on this (if you can generate interest) - mine is in favour --Herby talk thyme 10:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please, will someone finish the conworld books!?!

The books conart, consports, and conculture are either not started or very far being finished. Will someone please start/finish them?

This is a wiki, and you are welcome to edit or author those books as you see fit. There currently aren't any active contributors to wikibooks with knowledge in these areas, so i dont think that we will be able to finish them. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

oh well... thanks anyway

[edit] Speedy delete: C_Sharp_Programming/Index

I have placed a delete tag on the C_Sharp_Programming/Index page due to the fact that such a page makes little to no sense to include in any project that is using Wikimedia. The normal category page effectively fulfills the role that this page was designed for, if pages are properly categoriesed. Since I am currently properly categorising the book, I see no reason to keep the page. It appears that noone has contributed to the book in about a month either, so I don't think that i'm stepping on anyones toes here. --Ohms law 11:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If Johnny doesn't beat me to this <g>. Feel free to place {{delete}} with the reason on there. If you are less sure {{qr-em}} will allow a week before it becomes active (if you are really unsure the is a V(otes) f(or) D(eletion) process to - just ask). All the best --Herby talk thyme 11:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry read it again! Yes fine to place the tag on as you did. I guess I'd just look at the contribs of any named editors recently and put something on their talk page if they are active - and I promise to read it properly next time! --Herby talk thyme 11:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Categories and index pages are not the same thing... for one thing, categories don't print out well. They're used here frequently, so tagging for delete isn't going to be the best way to get along with other authors. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but ... if there's no pages indexed?? I'll learn honest! --Herby talk thyme 11:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
that's kindof what made me actually place the delete tag on the page. Good point regarding printability, but I think that I could create a different index page with meaningfull content later on if needed. i'll keep looking for any ongoing discussion within the project itself, but it appears that i'm the only person working on the project at the moment. :( --Ohms law 12:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
In general, it is much better to expand a page so that it becomes more acceptable, then to delete the page and remove any potential benefits it could have. This book may not have had an active contributor in over a month, but there are many books here on wikibooks with the same problem. It certainly isn't impetus to start deleting books that are old. I say that this page should stay. It's a potentially useful page in an established (if unattended to) book. The fact that it isn't living up to it's potential usefulness is--again--more a reason to expand it then to delete it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the speedy tag from this page since it is definitely not something that can be immediately deleted without discussion, and that discussion is happening here right now anyway. I created this page for the reason of it being like a part of an actual book. Yes, categories do accomplish some of the things an index provides, but a lot of the cross-referencing that a good book needs cannot be achieved in categories. I've read many books that don't offer a deep index and it makes things much more difficult to locate, especially for a programming book. The page hasn't been developed, but that's just what happens with books here sometimes. It definitely should stay and will be a great benefit to the book once its content becomes larger. -withinfocus 16:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Just an aside, Ohms law: this sort of thing usually gets discussed on WB:VFD... though in reality it probably just the same people there as here :).
A second aside: I agree with you totally that the categorization system is a very useful tool -- and I am firmly in the "categorize everything" camp --, but I sort of see wiki categories as being more useful to the authors than the readers, just as an index page is probably more useful to readers than authors... in fact I for one don't like writing indices, but I do try to update the index on my pet book from time to time. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:40, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Esperanza

Esperanza, the community organization on wikipedia has been nominated for deletion. I'm not entirely sure if the motion will pass (based on sheer vote-counting, i assume it will not be deleted), but there is still a strong rift at wikipedia between the people who are trying to form a wiki-community, and the people who are trying to write a serious encyclopedia. The primary argument for deletion is that Esperanza serves primarily as a social networking club, and that it does not promote the contribution of material to the encyclopedia.

I've talked with User:SBJohnny about this, and we were thinking that perhaps we could extend an invite to the wikipedia esperanzans who have been disenfranchied on that project. This would serve the purpose of not only boosting wikibooks (more active contributors), but it would also be an importation of a pre-made community organization that would help make our project more cohesive.

I don't want to say anything without general community consent here, but I would like to invite members of Esperanza to join wikibooks, and bring some of their goodness with them. On wikipedia, Esperanza has served to greet new users, train admins, answer questions (in a setting less formal then staff lounge), and promote "wikilove". I think wikibooks would benefit from all those things. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Man, I think this serves the exact purpose we've been talking about in the "On Advertising Wikibooks" subject. Get more people here. I mean, this sounds to me like a golden opportunity to bring a good crowd of Wikipedians over who may very well find interest in helping out. I don't know the whole situation over on Wikipedia with regards to Esperanza, but on the face of it, it sure sounds like a fantastic idea.
I've just read through some of the comments on the nomination for deletion. I still think it's a good idea. It sounds like the worst case is that Esperanza might need to focus their efforts a bit, but it doesn't sound like there's anything really wrong with it. Frankly, I don't see anything wrong with having a social community associated with this project or Wikipedia. Sure, it woild be great if everyone wanted to sit around all day and work on content contributions, but the fact is, if a social community helps bring people in and helps them learn the ropes, then it's only improving the project as a whole. BTW, sorry for not signing my last comment there. -- Pete 21:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Although it's nice to have a sense of community, having a massive "organization" such as this seems distracting. In order to write a book you most certainly need a team of users in most cases, but I worry that Esperanza would bring more to the talk pages than the content pages. New or inexperienced users here can always use help, but I don't think that's a significant problem here; content production is what we need, not user interaction. A lot of the comments at the Wikipedia discussion center around time-wasting and I don't see how you could effectively invite those users over here. I would find it unusual to see a "hey, even though you were dumped, we'll house you over here" and I think it would become just a bunch of page moves of all their "policies" and not actual book-work here. There's even a committee or council of sorts that sounds almost like a crown, but I don't really know about how they operate exactly. If there was a community of content-writers that were being kicked out I would love for them to come here, but I don't think we're that desperate for more user interaction. Maybe they'll change their style once they get here, though. -withinfocus 21:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure they'd want to "move" to wikibooks, but I think they might have some ideas and energy to help us liven up the place a bit. Esperanza is a very wikipedian phenomenon and might not adapt as a wikibooks project. But the purpose of the project is to build community spirit, and our community spirit has been dampened by 2 major schisms over the past year: the forking-away of both wikiversity and strategywiki. They're good faith people who might have some good ideas to help get us on back our feet. --SB_Johnny | talk 01:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
From reading through the comments from Esperanza members in the nomination for deletion, I got the sense there were a lot of members who were heavy content producers as well as members who weren't. I don't see having a bunch of non-content producers around as a problem, as long as they're not getting in the way of the content producers. If they're getting in the way, then that would be a problem. I have to say that, since I've gotten here, I've felt very welcomed by the people here and I enjoy the back and forth that goes on and it doesn't really distract me from doing content. I've got an exam tomorrow and I haven't had time to focus on writing content today, but I've had time to make a few posts here. Writing a book takes devoted concentration, so there are days when I'm not going to be able to provide that, but reading some posts and socializing a bit takes far less work. And some of it has been productive, even if it's not producing content. I think we've discussed some interesting points for improving Wikibook today, so I don't feel like that was time wasted at all. -- Pete 03:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Reading through what everyone else has said so far, I only have a few comments. Whoever does the inviting needs to ensure that they understand Wikibooks isn't Wikipedia and how things work here. Don't want to end up with people trying to enforce Wikipedia rules here which simply don't exist or apply here, people creating a bunch of disjointed pages that are more like articles then pages of a book, using excessive text linking or other common Wikipedia practises, which create more work then help. Finally whose going to train them so they can train others? --darklama talk 13:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I have not be involved in Wikibooks for long, and almost all of my work has been in Wikijunior. However, I thought I would share my thoughts. From the perspective of a Wikipedia outsider, the RfD related to Esperanza was a pretty bizarre read. I don't understand why people in Wikipedia would want to get rid of a group who is "guilty" of (it seems to me) possibly oversocializing(?). I personally would welcome people in Wikijunior who could help us develop a greater sense of community. Writing a book requires collaboration, cooperation and mutual understanding that can be hard to develop online. Anyone who has experience in developing community would be a plus in my book. --xixtas 18:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Main Page#Error_on_main_page

Taken the pdf off Wikibooks:PDF Versions but it remains on the front page (assuming that is correct - it goes nowhere). Both for this and interest how is that edited off? --Herby talk thyme 13:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Following the template trails leads to Wikibooks:Featured books/Alphabetical listing. I went ahead and removed, once I confermed for myself that its side was zero. --darklama talk 14:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Support needed

I'd like to make a bugzilla request to allow blocked editors to edit their own talk pages, in case they might bave been blocked by mistake (using that nasty "third option"), and need an easy way to communicate with us.

See Wikibooks:Request_for_blocked_user_change. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See also: w:Template:Unblock for how this function is used. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:25, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Groups?

Are there any groups which work together on some projects here at wikibooks too? I'm looking forward to write a book on "windows registry hacks" and would like to keep in touch with people of similar interest. --seXie(t0lk) 07:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately we don't have much in the way of a "wikiproject" structure. Your best bet is to look through the contribution history of the book you're interested in working on (or related books), and leave messages on user talk pages. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Maybe some people at wiki can also help :) --seXie(t0lk) 12:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:ENGLISHTEACHER

I know that the "rules" about talk spaces are far more relaxed than other areas but I am not sure about this? As a ps I do know another new talk page where someone appears to be writing a story? --Herby talk thyme 08:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, odd, but I don't think this is doing any harm so far. --Swift 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Why

Have we got Wikibooks:Start a new page & Help:Starting a new page? Is there any sensible way to discover other similar (daft, sorry) duplications that can easily confuse people? --Herby talk thyme 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree this isn't very helpful. How about redirecting the former to the latter? I suppose we could also delete it without much harm as it seems the content is all already on the hep page.
I don't know of any clever method of finding such duplications. If you don't find any by browsing around, chances are, those looking for the info won't find any confusing information either. This type of work (clarifying, centralizing and reducing redundancy of the project and help namespaces) has been getting onto my list of interests here, but unfortunately another matter is taking up all of my very limited WB time. If you find other such pages and don't have time to deal with them yourself, please let me know and I'll put them on my (fast growing) todo-list. --Swift 16:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I've actually been "browsing round" help for a while now & I've only just found them. The chances of "newbies" finding the page we want them to ... In practice with these the content is fairly similar but I am now convinced there are more to find! As & when I get time I'll try and do some cat'ing which would help finding stuff I guess but some sort of overall schema that was available & understood would help --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
The help one transcludes the Wikibooks one. I think the help one should be fixed and then the Wikibooks one turned into a redirect. There's actually a few like that. Just compare pages in the Wikibooks namespace to ones in the Help namespace. This just causes confusion and I think leads to some of the issues we have here. Thats why I'm slowly fixing them. I think there may also be some Wikibook pages not duplicated in the Help namespace that ought to be moved there because there help pages rather then guidelines or policies, which would make that clearer as well. --darkYin yang.svglama 16:43, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposition of mathematics unification.

I would like to propose an initiative to unify most of the mathematics bookshelf. It has come to my attention that the German wikibooks have used a technique of unifying all the mathematics books except for specific courses such as 'A level'. If we were to cover all of mathematics from typical learning ages at 3 to 21 but keep specific syllabuses separate it would allow for much more progress to be made as well as an achievable target to be set. Of course this decision will be pivotal to the future of wikibooks as a whole and I would like for some productive discussion to be made.

Yours sinceraly, Edward Rein

An inspiring look at how the mathematics bookshelf should be can be seen at the following link using Google translator German Mathematics Wikibook shelf

I don't think complete unification (assuming the definition that unification means to combine all mathematics topics into a single book) is a good idea. First off, there are some clear divisions in mathematics that would be well served by having their own separate books: Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, etc. Also, among these various branches, there are some clear deliniations in the subjects that people are taught in particular chunks. Consider Algebra, for instance, which can be easily broken into Algebra, Linear Algebra, and Abstract Algebra topics easily, without having to cover duplicate material. If you consider that the goal of wikibooks is to generate textbooks, and textbooks typically accompany a year-long or a semester-long course of study, it makes sense to either (a) divide up material into logical books that can be taught in a year/semester, or to (b) divide material from a single book into logical cubsections that can be taught in a year/semester. It makes no sense to combine all the books together and then have to break things down into separate chunks again. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry for my ambiguity. What I meant to imply was for duplicated books to be merged and for all the books to be linked symbolising ones progression (as in stages of learning) with the exemption of exam board specifications. If you were to follow the link I think you will grasp a vague idea of what I'm trying to send here. I think this route can offer a more definitive and usable series of mathematical text books. As always I encourage discussion. --Herraotic 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know german,but I think I do grasp the idea here. It's actually a good idea, and I'm sorry I misunderstood you. I've already tried my hand at some reorganization on the math bookshelf, but unfortunately i simply don't have enough time in the day to work on such a large project (at least not until winter break rolls around). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I wish to upload information from books that my tuition school gave me that they had made. I contacted them about copyright issues that could possibly rise if I were to upload the information to the internet and they told me as far as they were concerned the text could be freely used though none of this is signed on paper. Do you think it would be fine for me to upload this? --Sorry for keeping this under the same header-- --Herraotic 21:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I think we'd need something in writing to cover our colective wikibehinds (i.e., if someone else wrote it, we need explicit (written) permission before we can release it under the GFDL). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I have made a new book at the following link, discussion would be very helpful. --Herraotic 22:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


I would have to point out that some topics, particularly mathmatics but others as well, can be taught from very divergant viewpoints and methodologies. Merging books together for the sake of simply presenting a single topic can be cumbersome at best and is not strictly needed in Wikibooks. On the other hand, if there are several half-completed books about a given topic and combining sections can make something a bit more complete with some extra editing, that is something I support in general. I wouldn't do this combining if there are active participants following very different philosophies from seperate Wikibook groups. --Rob Horning 21:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think Rob makes a very good point here about the difficulty of combining actively edited wikibooks - I can see possibilities of ending up with something other than the "best of both worlds"! Dormant/abadoned ones would be different --Herby talk thyme 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I for one have examined the state of the mathematics bookshelf and it seems to me that from a readers perspective, it would be hard to attempt to learn from, particularly for younger readers. For instance one obviously wouldn't read linear algebra independently from a syllabus nor would one learn a topic such as surds in one book. So I conclude with contemplating this question, are the books made for students who will refer to this on specific syllabus or will they be fragmented for students to amend the inconsistent pieces? I personally think that the books should initially be targeted at the foundations and intermediate age of learning (4 – 18) which would require for books to be separated by ability not form of skill and with the fundamentals cemented, for higher levels to be accomplished. --Herraotic 21:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to Rob, I do agree that different topics can certainly be taught from strongly divergent viewpoints. As an example for which I am familiar with, the concepts of mathematics (especially some calculus topics) are taught very differently to engineering students then they are to mathematics students (or computer science students, or physics students, etc). For these cases, it might be worthwhile for each individual discipline to contain their own supportive texts on their own bookshelf. The primary Calculus text could be found on the mathematics bookshelf, but different bookshelves could also have their own adaptations of it. For instance, I've been working on a book called Engineering Analysis which is essentially a math book, but is being taught from an engineering point of view. The topics considered are only those with relevance to engineering, and the example problems are all engineering-related.
If we accept that solution, then the mathematics bookshelf could contain books taught from a purely-mathematical way, and books for divergent audiences could be moved to a more specific location. As a good example of this, in an undergraduate engineering or science curriculum, students typically take some "math" courses taught by the math department, but they also will take some mathematics-based courses that are taught by their own department (I took calculus in the math department, but took linear algebra and probability in the engineering department, for example). Doing things this way would allow us to clean up the mathematics bookshelf, and also strengthen the other bookshelves that use mathematics. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
How would you propose we implement this, Whiteknight? --Herraotic 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Thats a good question, it's always easier to say that something can be done then to lay out specifically how it can be done. I think that what we need to lay out is a tree graphic that shows how different subjects inter-relate with one another. For instance, Arithmetic leads to Algebra. Algebra then can lead to Linear Algebra, Geometry, or Trigonometry. We could create a template that says "This wikibook relies on material from (X), and provides material that leads to (Y)".
Each book on the mathematics bookshelf should also have a statement that says "This book will be written from a pure-mathematics point of view. For mathematics-related books to support science, technology, or engineering books, visit those specific bookshelves." Books on other shelves, such as science or engineering shelves would have to specify what are the prerequisites for reading the books, and whether those prerequisites can be satisfied from books on the math shelf, or whether those prerequisites can be satisfied with books on the science of engineering shelves. Here are some books that I think we should have, at least:
Arithmetic, Algebra, Linear Algebra, Geometry, Trigonometry, Calculus, Differential Equations (if not included in Calculus), Abstract Algebra, Probability, Complex Analysis.
This is just my first ideas on the subject. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] BOTM and COTM, december

I would like to propose that we (temporarily) abandon the COTM and BOTM initiatives. I think that we should abandon the current round of voting, and not declare any BOTM or COTM winners for December. The Wikijunior Book of the Quarter initiative can remain unchanged. My reasons for proposing this are as follows:

  1. None of the recent COTM or BOTM winners have attracted any special attention, nor received any noticable and prolonged boost in the number of contributors. In short, nobody is collaborating, and nobody is paying attention to these books.
  2. BOTM and COTM winners, recently, have won their respective titles with pitifully small numbers of votes. 3 or 4 votes does not a "Book of the month" make.
  3. The maintenance of the BOTM and COTM voting pages, lists, and monthly templates (especially those on the main page) has been lacking, and no person or group of people have really been stepping up to make this system great. This is not to say that nobody is doing it, but if it's just busy-work, and nobody really takes any pride in it, then why should we bother?
  4. The BOTM and COTM initiatives are more myopic, and less helpful then the Wikibooks:Featured books page, which lists many books, and also tells what specific kinds of improvements that each book needs.

I would like to not have a BOTM or a COTM for the month of december, and instead use that time to work on a number of wikibooks-related projects:

  1. A "Staff Drive", to get more outside people interested in wikibooks, and get more of the active contributors here to participate more in project-wide maintenence. This would include, hopefully, a drive to nominate and install more admins.
  2. A general push to tie up loose ends on Policy matters, including old proposals and other unfinished business.
  3. Do more work in the help pages, and also the A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. Specifically, we should talk about how to produce print versions, PDF versions, etc of different books. Also, we could try and renew interest in the physical publication of wikibooks.

We had talked about abandoing BOTM and COTM previously, but it was never done. If we take a month off, and drum up more support, we can reinstall both initiatives starting in January, if we want. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • very much in favour. This is a good place to be and has some very good editors. It also has jobs that need doing - where I can help I will. By comparison BOTM & COTM don't look quite so important. It would be great if a few people get behind this --Herby talk thyme 19:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I read this earlier and Herby asked me to chime in. I'm very new here, so take my opinion however you want. Honestly, I have to agree with Whiteknight. I think there are other things going on here that are more important than the BOTM and COTM. If they're not helping to bring in contributors and they're using up time that could be better spent doing other things, then it makes perfect sense to do that.
My time is pretty limited. I work full-time (40-60 hour weeks) and take about 12 hours of classes a week. My main motivation in working on the organic chemistry text is that to write an accurate textbook, I need to know the material inside and out, and therefore, it's a fantastic study aid for me.
I mention all of this because, I'll be happy to help out if there's stuff I can do to lighten the load, but I want to qualify that by saying, I can make absolutely no time commitments. I'll do what I can, when I can, but work and school are my priorities and I won't let anything interfere with either. -- Pete 23:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I also agree with Whiteknight. I really don't think BOTM & COTM are needed next month. There's allot of other things that need to be done around here. Image cleanup, maintenance tasks, book formatting, etc. And a Staff Drive would help, Wikibooks needs more users and admins.--Az1568 01:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - BOTM is a nice idea but hardly worthwhile given the small number of votes and especially if, as you say, it often results in the BOTM being abandoned as people now think it's perfect. Wikibooks has a lot of users but it's difficult for newbies to find out how to nominate books (all this trawling through different pages to find out what's going on) and as such, I imagine, most books are nominated by a small group of regular users. Xania 11:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - Additionally I think that if something like BOTM and COTM should be restarted that they should first be collapsed into one initiative, such as "Featured Book of the Month" to complement Wikibooks:Featured books. Perhaps even requiring potential book canidates to have been listed on that page for awhile. Another disadvantage to the ones Whiteknight mentioned that I see is with two different initiatives, any efforts to bring intention and contribitions to a book is split in half, lowering the intended effectiveness of the initiatives. --darklama 13:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Wonder. I've been trying to get the shaving book COTM status since June. I remember the book getting a lot more edits when it was new. I believe those edits came in because the book was mentioned on the front page, in the new books list. I have no reasons to believe that "merchandising" wouldn't help the book to get more edits again. Many COTM winners have been about complex subjects. Not everyone can write about technical subjects, while a book about a simple task such as shaving can be extended by almost anyone. For that reason I believe that the book can benefit from COTM status more than many recent winners. --Easyas12c 23:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    But by that rationale, it would almost make more sense for us to list all the "good" books in one box on the main page (which is already the case), and all "Close to Good" books in another box on the main page. This way, books like Shaving which would probably excel from a little publicity doesnt need to wait for a particular month to be advertised, it can have a semi-permanent place on the main page. One thing that i've noticed recently is that many of the books that are voted COTM or BOTM (and I agree that most of them recently ahve been overly technical) simply haven't attracted any additional attention. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:14, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I've never taken part in these discussions, so don't have any opinion on it. However, if the goal is to get new contributors, maybe it's time we set up an RFC process... for us, the "C" could stand either for Comment or Contributions (w:WP:RFC is used primarily for dispute resolution, but we could use it for more than just that). I've also been using a template on wikipedia to attract contributors to new transwikis: add {{subst:howtobook}} ~~~~ to the bottom of the talk page (see w:Template:Howtobook for text). --SB_Johnny | talk 10:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support in part COTM has only one book (currently) with more than one votes (Shaving with four) however, BOTM has two both with four, which leads to a tie but tiw breaking rules are already in place and have already been used, one of these will likley go on to January. As for Wikijunior Bugs has 6 votes, Human Body 3, and World Religons and WWII both have four so there will likely be a clear winner and plenty of books automatically transfered to January. As I see it Wikijunior and BOTM should move on while COTM can also move on (since it has a clear winnner) but maybe it should temporarily stop COTM voting. For maintanance perhaps we should start a Wikiproject similar to those in Wikipedia so that they do get maintained.Klingoncowboy4 17:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
    Comment There is already an Infobox wikiproject here. Klingoncowboy4 17:42, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 7 day waiting period before VFD

If something is obviously not a vandalism or a newbie test, I think we should wait some 7 days before putting a delete or vfd tag on it. I don't think it should be policy, but at least a guideline. Just something to keep in mind to respect the authors. If something is that young anyway, a quick talk with the author about how he can revise it should suffice as opposed to the rather strong action of "delete". --Dragontamer 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Basically, I'd rather have someone talk with the author if the book is younger than 7 days, than for anyone to put a delete tag on it. This isn't wikipedia, and by default, this project will move slower than wikipedia. Simply because books take much longer to write than articles. --Dragontamer 23:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
There is a new tag aimed at this purpose for itty-bitty stubs, namely {{qr-em}}. A {{qr-transwiki}} template is in the works now for tagging pages that appear to be copy-paste transwikis from wikipedia as well.
User:Darklama has some code that will make these templates automagically add the tagged page to CSD after a certain number of days... 7 days is one option. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that is a pretty cool tag. The main thing though is that I sometimes see {{delete}} tags in some cases 2 days after a registered user began making the page because it is a "stub". If that doesn't drive out potential users, I don't know what will. --Dragontamer 23:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
RC patrolling has become a popular sport lately, which is a good thing IMO, but yes, sometimes things like that are occurring that maybe shouldn't be. I'd like to see a few more qr tags to act as something parallel to the "db" tags on wikipedia, but with a time delay built in to account for the different nature of our project.
Darklama's code actually tracks the page by the last time it was edited, not the time that the tag was put on the page, meaning that a new contributor could continue to work on the page and keep moving the date forward. Hopefully people using the tag will be sure to watchlist the page as well, so it can be removed as progress is made, in the case that the author is unfamiliar with the use of talk pages, which I suspect may happen more often than we think it does. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
According to the deletion policy, a page may not be nominated for VfD for at least 7 days after it has been created for precisely this reason. See Wikibooks:Deletion policy. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Also, a page may not be nominated for speedy deletion if it has any meaningful content, unless some special circumstances apply. "Meaningful content", as defined by the policy, is essentially anything that isn't blatant vandalism or spam. Even pages that are terrible stubs qualify as "meaningful content". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:05, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I could have sworn it was there, but when I read over it, I think I missed it or something. Hmm... in that case, discussion over :-) Its already in policy! --Dragontamer 03:30, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Reset indent Just to say that RC partrolling is an essential part of housekeeping and keeping this wiki clear of some of the junk that gets here and can be done by ording "staff" so allowing Admins (active) to get on with housekeeping only they can do --Herby talk thyme 10:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

This just seems to add to the confusion. I've nominated some books for deletion because, generally, they're full of crap. They may be new and not obviously a speedy candidate (as they don't have vandalism, spam or commercial stuff) but even so I think it's possible to say it should be deleted even if it's less than 7 days old. Are you saying that only obvious spam should be put forward for deltion so soon? Xania 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Missed your comment Xania (& so has everyone else!). For me (now) there has to be an absence of worthwhile content that could be turned into a stub. If there is "some" content I tend to place it on a separate watchlist for a while or use {{qr-em}} (which I do more than I did). Up to the "bosses" what happens after that & please keep up the RC work 'cos other than you and me....! --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is there a local wiki viewer?

Is there a program that I can run on my computer and that displays wiki source (input) as it shows up on wikibooks (or wikipedia)? Your help is greatly appreciated. In case this question has already been answered (I have searched without success) then my apologies and please point me to the answer.--Koantum 04:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you looking for something that renders the finished product, or are you looking for something that only downloads the wiki source text? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 14:55, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Either case, you can use eclipse editor and use plog4u plugin for wikipedia. With this you can do both edit the source in Raw format and preview your work inside the editor.

Eclipse.png

Download the eclipse from http://www.eclipse.org and visit http://www.plog4u.org to download the plugin to render wiki source.

-- Murali Narayanan Kb3lja 13:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some odd pages

Given discussion on VfD/speedy above I'll not speedy some of these. However there are a collection of new pages that are not straightforward. October/November 2003 merely has links in to Paper 4 and Paper 2 and in turn these only have links to "upload pages". If this was not an issue what you do get as an upload looks very like a copvio in both cases. While there is no copyright notice exam papers in the uk may be copyrighted and I do not know the procedure for licensing on such a pdf file. Look around beyond this ones listed as May/June 2004 for example also exists. Possible all incorrectly named and may be related to IG Mathematics which also links to pdfs --Herby talk thyme 08:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC) By the way - I do realise that if these pages are valid they are not named correctly! --Herby talk thyme 10:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually these are probably speediable... aside from bad naming convention, they're apparently not directed at any sort of audience at all (if they were, they'd presumably be titled/categorized/bookshelved to alert an audience of their presence). Use {{qr-em}} if you see more of these. --SB_Johnny | talk 10:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] On Advertising Wikibooks

Herby and I had a short back and forth on my talk page and he suggested I post my comments here, so blame him <g>. Keep in mind, I'm still quite new here, so take my comments however you want. I came to wikibooks entirely by accident. Apparently Herby did too. I'm not completely out of the loop on what's out on the web. I'm a regular Slashdot reader, I'm an almost daily Wikipedia reader, but I have never heard of Wikibooks, at least that I recall.

There was mention earlier about skipping the BOTM/COTM to concentrate on other things that need doing and I have a couple of ideas about how the Wikibooks project might be served best. 1> It needs to be advertised better out there. For people who contribute to programming books here and also do support on usenet newsgroups for programming, or on web site forums, reference wikibooks. For people working on books on other topics, when they're on other sites related and someone asks a question that might be answered in a wikibook, point them to the wikibook.

But here's another issue I think is crucial and this is based on the old expression, "You never get a second chance to make a first impression." When someone goes to Wikipedia, 98+% of the time, they see a pretty complete article. There are a lot of books here in the early stages or abandoned. Books that simply aren't very active. I'm certainly not advocating getting rid of this material, but I think there ought to be some way to make the more complete books more visible than the less complete books. That doesn't mean to make the less complete books really difficult to find, just make them less prominent. I don't know how best to do this and maybe others here will have better ideas on this. But if someone comes here and the first book they look at has mostly empty pages, their first impression is going to be, "Wow, this place needs work," and they may very well leave. On the other hand, if the first thing they see is a pretty complete book, they may stick around longer and decide to get involved in some of the less complete books.

It's just my theory and again, I'm new here, so take all this with a grain of salt. I want to help out where I can and at the moment, that's going to be mostly in the organic chem text because I feel it needs a lot of work and I feel I can contribute a lot to it. -- Pete 16:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this assesment, and to a degree it's this way of thinking that has influenced the current design of our main page. For instance, the large box at the top with the "Featured Books", or the links on the sidebar to "Completed Books" were all added for just these reasons. also, the BOTM initiative was designed to spotlight a particular book that is particularly good, and to prominently display that book on our main page. The COTM initiative was designed to put a similar spotlight on a collaborative project that is currently undergoing alot of work. I think that we need to have more of a focus on our completed books, and put our less-completed books (or books that need work but who are actively attracting contributors) in some place that is less visible (such as the community portal), but put a link on the main page for "books needing authors", or even "Adopt a book!". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Ibelieve the Organic Chem book was a BOTM back in June, and in yourmessage you said, "BOTM initiative was designed to spotlight aparticular book that is particularly good". Now, I'm not saying it's abad book, but as someone studying Organic Chemistry, this book is stillfar below the standards of Organic Chemistry textbooks in terms ofcompleteness. There are many fundamental aspects that are glossed overat the moment that need a great deal more elaboration. There's definitely some reorganization stuff that needs to happen, and soforth. I'm not trying to put the book down at all. Clearly, a greatdeal of work has gone into it, but I wouldn't consider it a good candidate for a complete book and it probably shouldn't have beenhighlighted as a BOTM. If you don't know organic chemistry and you justlook over the book, it might appear pretty complete and the problemthere is, you need to rely on the honest assessment of peoplecontributing to a book like this, or people who are familiar with thetopic, to know if a book is ready to be brought out into the spotlight.One thing that might be helpful is, at least on the title page orcontents page for books, is to have a prominent notice of the state ofthe book overall. I know we try to mark the progress of individualsections and the Organic Chem book could use this a little more, but I think something that rated the book on several factors, that'sprominently displayed, would also make visitors more understandingabout incomplete works. For example, if the table of contents had something like: This book has the following ratings (Coverage oftopics= 75%, Depth of coverage = 50%, Average completeness of sections= 75%, Editing Activity 4 out of 10) or something like that. Thosemight not be the things to rate, but it gives some idea of the state ofthe book. It lets people know if there's a lot of recent editingactivity or not recent editing activity. Once a book is more or lesscomplete, then you simply replace it with: This book is a mature work,or something like that. At that point, editing activity doesn't matterand the other stuff is considered pretty much 100% complete. But Ithink that gives the new visitor a good idea of the state of a given book. Now who makes those ratings and how? I don't know. It's hard toget an objective, honest assessment sometimes. One person's idea ofcomplete is probably different from someone else's. Anyway, justtossing out ideas... -- Pete 17:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's another point that I agree with you on. I don't like the 25%, 50%, etc symbols, because the 100% symbol implies that the book is finished, when in reality a wikibook is never finished. Seeing a 00% or a 25% on a book indicates that it's below-average and probably not worth any time. There are other symbols that have been used on the Wikibooks:Featured books page that are significantly better for use:
  • (c): the book is still lacking in content.
  • (o): the book is lacking in organization and structure.
  • (s): the book suffers from a lack of style (or poorly applied style) and formatting
  • (w): the book needs less html and more wikiformatting
  • (n): the book uses a poor naming convention
  • (t): the book has many stub pages or red links.
These symbols are significantly better signs of the state of a book, and they could probably be expanded to be even more specific. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:35, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm perhaps stages could be reworked to not represent how far until completation a book or chapter is, but its level of development, and instead of using percent signs use a sliding scale between 0 and 4?
  • 0 : new book or lacking contents
  • 1 : consists mainly of stub pages or red links
  • 2 : needs organization and structure
  • 3 : book needs additional contents and editors
  • 4 : book is developed enough to read and learn from.
or something like that. --darklama 18:47, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

But even then, people will see books that are (4), and will say "I dont need to contribute to that book, because it's complete". People will see books that are (1) or (0), and say "that book is probably garbage, i'm not going to waste my time with it. We really need to stress the point that all books need help, and we can point out the specific types of help that the book needs. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe just get rid of the stages thing compleatly then and have something like Wikibooks:Books needing help page where book editors can say exactly what type of help they need? It could be like this page or like the community portal and other pages for books that need help and people willing to help out. --darklama 20:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
That's definately an Idea in the right direction, but i'm still of the opinion that all books need help, and many of the books that need the most help don't currently have an active contributing author associated with them. We could set up voting system where books could be added to Wikibooks:Featured books based on a vote. This would be like BOTM, but it could happen at any time (hopefully many books each month). On that page, books are broken into "Good Books" (books which are mostly usable as-is, but with a few suggestions), and "Working books" (books that are on their way up, but need work). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 20:52, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"people will see books that are (4), and will say "I dont need to contribute to that book, because it's complete"."
Whiteknight, I wouldn't worry so much about that situation, and here's why. The point is to get people here, get them reading the books and using the site. Once they've been around for a little while, they'll start to understand how things work. If they have any interest in contributing, they'll start looking around to see what's involved, just like I did. The plain fact is, a vast majority won't want to contribute, and that's fine. The trick is just getting people to spend enough time here so that the ones who do want to contribute will stick around long enough to get interested. At least, that's how I see it. How exactly the ratings are done doesn't need to be decided right this moment. I think the fact that we all pretty much agree that this is a good direction to go is an indicator that something should be done about it. And other people may want to weigh in on this as well. -- Pete 20:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Well I'm sure you might agree some books need more help then others even though all books need some form of help. People could mentioned abandoned books on Wikibooks:Books needing help as well, not just the editors of the book. I think though most likely people who would be mentioning an abandoned book are those people who may be interested in reviving it, but need help doing so. "Working books" may also give the impress to people that those books don't need help. The only solution I can think of to prevent giving the impression that some books are compleated and some books aren't is to avoid the concepts entirely. However I'm not how books could get helped then. --darklama 21:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
"All books need help", well, I would have to agree, for now. However; I hope that there is a point where they won't need help any more. Where they can sit stable, and everyone can wipe their hands off with a project well done. We really need to make a publication process of some sort. --Dragontamer 05:12, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another route. Grassroots style

While the talk above is definitly important for the overall feel of wikibooks, I feel that there are other directions we can face as well. Whenever we start a new colaboration of the month, I think we should really focus on the book. As much or even more as we do on Wikijunior colaborations. Maybe collaboration of the quarter or something, something that can take a book and actually run it through like the Big Cats book was run through. Get every page worked up to perfection, have lots of people read through the entire book, and after a few months, even typeset a nice PDF version.

In such a colaboration, we should also look for the other communities. We should ask for help from say, the Python community to create a nice beginner Python book. Send emails to developers and interested experts who can review the material. From there on out, we stabilize the book somehow, and create a print version.

While we are doing this, we are working with the Python community. They will create the documentation they need by using wikibooks, and in the end, we all benifit. Thats what this project is here for right? We really need a real bookshelf around here, something totally complete that we can brag about. --Dragontamer 04:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)



[edit] Text linking on Wikibooks

Could someone show me where in policy/guideline is "excessive text linking" discouraged and why? (Given that text links aren't printed, so how does that even affect a printed version?) --pfctdayelise 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

See Wikibooks:Dewikify for the reasons. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
For myself, in the organic chem text, I generally link new words to the glossary the first time they appear in a section, but not afterwards. I haven't defined all the words in the glossary yet, but I'm trying to avoid linking outside where possible. Instead, I do try to get a definition into the glossary and link to that.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think linking is okay, as long as two things are kept in mind: 1) You're writing a self-contained book. All the information the user needs should be available within the text of the book. 2) The book is ordered such that it builds on previous material, so when printed, it can be read in order and doesn't require jumping around from one place to another to get the information to follow the text. Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the main concern is that the book be readable when printed. -- Pete 17:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Pete, could you give us a link to the glossary? I'm curious how you have it configured for linking to. (I'll look later if you don't reply... just popping in for a moment now). --SB_Johnny | talk 17:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Text-Linking is fine, but there is no reason why the text of a book should be linked as excessively as a wikipedia article is. A book should be self-contained, and should not link to a million external resources in midst of the narrative. This is not to say that links can't appear in a glossary or in footnotes. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
"someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the main concern is that the book be readable when printed." - well, that's sort of the point. If the book relies on a million links to explain the terms used, then the print version isn't going to contain these explanations if the only method of explaining is via cross-project wikilinking :-). --SB_Johnny | talk 18:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Here's a sample of the text with a link to the glossary:
Zaitsev's rule (sometimes spelled "Saytzeff") states that in an elimination reaction, when multiple products are possible, the most stable alkene is the major product That is to say, the most highly substituted alkene (the alkene with the most non-hydrogen substituents), is the major product.
I agree, excessive linking like wikipedia isn't necessary, and usually, if I do make a link, I make it only the first time the word is used, so there may be a few in the beginning of a section, but very few, if any, later on. For a textbook of this type, it is useful when reading online because it makes it very easy to go back to a section quickly if you need to review some aspect of it. But for all intents and purposes, the sections that I have written are intended to be read in the order that the book is written and the references aren't required for reading on paper. They're simply there as a convenience for the online reader. -- Pete 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That doesnt seem like a problem to me. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:17, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
OK well...I will work on using a glossary then. One thing though. I was planning to write a wikibook "Write Arabic", short for "Learn to read and write the Arabic script". It would concentrate on writing and only have very brief instructions re: pronunciation. The Arabic script is used for dozens of languages, I believe. Specifically, it is used for Uyghur (A Turkic language) as well as standard Arabic, of course. So instead of having separate modules on writing for each of these languages, doesn't it make sense to just have one book on writing, and all broader books like "Learn Uyghur" and "Learn standard Arabic" can refer to this writing book. A similar thing could be done for basic Hanzi/Kanji strokes and some principles of stroke order stuff. Also Cyrillic alphabet (although I suspect if you know the Latin/Roman alphabet, which presumably you do in en.wb, Cyrllic would not be that hard). Anyway... see what I'm getting at? Isn't it fine to have a book that is a "prerequisite" for other books? (Seems like there would be a lot in maths.) pfctdayelise 12:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well whats done in those cases is typically there will be a bibiography in the book listing other works that may be of interest to the reader. make sure to provide the actual url address to the wikibook though, so people who print it out can still find it. --darkYin yang.svglama 12:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
OK. Because the whole reason I thought of it was that I want to write "Learn Uyghur", but if you assume the reader is starting from scratch, you really need to spend a bunch of time on writing Arabic, even though it's not that related to Uyghur. So if I was printing "Learn Uyghur", I would bundle the books together, and I was thinking that Arabic etc could do that too. pfctdayelise 16:40, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Just one more thought on printing books or not. I was planning to include a lot of links to sound files for pronunciation comparison. I think the conception that a Wiki"book" ultimately can only be printed is a bit narrow. I envisage something closer to interactive multimedia software/CD (commons for learning languages these days). Shouldn't Wikibooks have some model for this too? pfctdayelise 16:44, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks is not paper, although the stated goal of several books is to eventually be printed and distributed as such. Many physical textbooks in this world come with supplimental materials such as CDs, or even links to supplemental websites. The fact is that print is a much more restrictive medium then wiki, and if you are going to use all the possibilities that wiki has to offer (audio and video, for instance), you won't be able to translate them into print. Many books can be physically printed, however, and I dont think we should discourage that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:32, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm with Whiteknight on this. Many textbooks today do come with CDs, DVDs, and even web sites where users can get additional multimedia-based stuff. Also, I think it's unrealistic to assume that most readers WON'T have access to the internet. Almost everyone in industrial countries will have access to the internet, so if there's multimedia, simply provide a URL int he print version for how to get to it.
As for the arabic alphabet, though, it's not that difficult to learn to write it, I don't think. I mean, like anything else, it's mostly practice. Obviously, the lack of vowels makes reading a difficulty for people used to them, but diacritical marks to indicate vowels is common in books on learning arabic and they too are easy to learn. But for reading in Arabic, and I'm assuming Uyghur is the same, though I don't know the first thing about it, but to read without diacritical marks, you really need to know the words you're reading... Anyway, I just can't imagine that there's enough involved in the arabic alphabet to require more than a pamphlet. Maybe I'm missing something. -- Pete 18:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it would be a fairly short book. Is there a size requirement?? I just thought it makes sense to compartmentalise it rather than unnecessarily duplicate the same material between books. I think the hard bit is learning the connected forms. (BTW: Uyghur uses a fully vowelled Arabic script. Thank goodness. ;)) --pfctdayelise 05:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I do think it's a good idea to compartmentalize material, especially material that is shared between multiple books. For an example, I've created the "book" Engineering Tables, which is essentially a compendium of materials that are shared among multiple books on the Engineering bookshelf. When you make your print versions, just make sure that you properly transclude these external resources. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
From that point of view, it does make sense. Farsi also uses, more or less, the same alphabet, as well. I think they have a P where arabic has a B, but otherwise, I think they're the same (same character as B but with a triangle of 3 dots under it instead of 1). I found the lack of vowels very frustrating. But really, I found many things about arabic frustrating. It's a difficult language. That was a long time ago, though. I might have better luck these days since I have a few other languages under my belt... -- Pete 02:05, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Some help, this world changes fast and frequently

I noticed a comment on formatting a few weeks ago, I cannot find it now. This place is almost a dream world, slip in, slip out, it is never the same.

I have noticed my book, Telescope Making, changes it's format with different browsers on different machines at different resolutions. I make it look good on one, it is a disaster on another. Anyone have any ideas?

I am doing a PDF version also and could post that. Maybe leave the illustrations out of the online and only put them in the PDF?

--Vorblesnak 19:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it can be tricky, and unfortunately with the combination of Wiki/HMTL/CSS that we can use here, it is difficult to specify precisely how a page should look. the result is that things tend to "float" around the page, popping up where ever the browser thinks they will fit best (which frequently isn't where the author intended it to go). I wouldn't leave the illustrations out, but having a really nice PDF version will let everybody know how you intended the page to look. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Where then would one place that PDF version? I am writing the text locally, then pasting it to an edit screen as a section gets done, so the PDF is one step ahead of the online. I have a suggestion from an old timer I know locally to put the image and associated text together as an image and let it float. I will try that. --Vorblesnak 00:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW: I am doing the writing but there is a group of us doing the composing. I had not noticed any way to add an author to the title. Or would that go in the top of the first page as a header? I will look around and see what others have done, but it is a question I have been meaning to research. --Vorblesnak 00:03, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_25"