Wikibooks:Staff lounge/Archive 26

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Holiday Cleaning!

I forgot who brought up the idea of not having a BotM or CotM for December, but here is an idea that will follow up with that idea. I thought we could have a "quasi" collaboration by using the links over at Wikibooks:Wikibooks_maintenance.

Big tasks:

  • User:Prod/Image_list I've been whacking at this a little bit. Basically, my Wikibook was transwikied to Strategy wiki, and Prod set up a list of all the images related to my wikibook. There is a lot, and a lot of deletions have to be done. Just take a couple of them a day or something. I personally don't have the will to go through all those deletions in one run :-/
  • Special:Lonelypages lists 581 (as of now) pages that are orphaned. They are virtually inaccessable. We should integrate them back into their books, turn them into stubs, or delete them. (or whatever appropriate thing that I forgot to list).
  • Special:Shortpages I'm not sure how this page works, but it appears that every few days, it takes the 1000 shortest pages in all of wikibooks and puts them on that page. Usually, a short page is a work of vandalism or an unworkable stub. We should go through that a couple of times.
  • Special:Unusedimages 1500+ Unused images. We should come up with something that will clean that up. Maybe not delete them outright, but an unused image is a red-flag IMO.
  • And maybe even... use Special:Allpages and systematically get rid of all junk, list abandoned projects, and so forth. But... thats stretching it :-p But the longer we wait, the harder it would get! Bah, crazy idea. NM :-p --Dragontamer 04:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In favour - the principle has my vote and I will do what I can. However can I throw in Wikibooks:Cleanup. I came across two pages in the past couple of days that have been listed since the 29th November 2005 with nothing much having happened to them. Old chestnut too but the help pages generally tend to be anything but <g> --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
PS - the category as well as the page itself! --Herby talk thyme 08:24, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • In Favor - Here's my first recommendation: There are about 300+ images from user User:DarkNShadow that are unused. They were uploaded in February and this user has contributed to no books. There are a bunch of images from users User:Filare (~25 images), User:Antme (~30 images), User:Llvoklojl (~30 images) uploaded in Sept, 2004. These users have contributed to no books. From August 2005, we have about 70 images from user User:Leptictidium who has contributed to no books.
There are a bunch from user User:Gmcfoley that appear to be for some Sonic Hedgehog game guide. He's been active around here lately, so maybe someone ought to ask him about those.
Anyway these might be a good place to quickly cut those numbers down in the Unused images. -- Pete 15:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
All of those images for Maple Story, uploaded by User:DarkNShadow are listed on User:Prod/Image_list. Just delete everything on Prod's list, and it should be good. --Dragontamer 17:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and for the Sonic thing... as long as that Sonic guide remains here, I see no reason to delete the images. If it gets a VfD or a deletion... then maybe we should worry about it. But it is time to start making Wikibooks a better place to get information --Dragontamer 18:57, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Tell ya what: let's get ogranised at Wikibooks:Cleanup! --SB_Johnny | talk 18:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good idea! --Dragontamer 18:56, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I need help!!!

I need help on making the print version of Solar System. It's there, but it hasn't been worked on yet. I f somebody would do it for me, I would be very glad. -- Tannersf 10:34, 19 November, 2006

I don't see much sense in making print version for a book that has no text. Anyway, I created it using my script. --Derbeth talk 12:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!!! --Tannersf 13:08, 19 November 2006 [UTC]

[edit] Using JMol

There's an application called JMol that's used for interactively viewing molecules. I mentioned it in one of the pages and Ewen asked me if we could use it here on Wikibooks. It would be particularly useful in the chemistry books and even the biochem books, since JMol can also visualize complex moelcules like proteins.

JMol is a java application and it's activated from a JavaScript on the page. That stuff, I believe, is easy enough to manage. The big problem is that JMol may need certain file permissions that might have to be done at the web server level. I'm not entirely sure how that works. I've installed it locally on my computer, but never on a server, so I'd have to do a little more research to get the details.

The obvious problem with using it in a wikibook is you can't run Java on paper. My thoughts there were to keep all the JMol stuff on separate pages that aren't in the printed version of the book with links that from the text that's in <div class="noprint></div> sections. Obviously the text and diagrams on the main page would need to be sufficient in themselves with the JMol stuff simply being a multimedia extra... Anyway, I'd appreciate any thoughts on thsi before I go digging around for the specifics on what would be required to install JMol on the servers. -- Pete 18:50, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Wikimedia servers are incredibly complex and use a shared-code system across the projects. I don't believe they would ever consider installing anything server-side since additions could affect all sites. That sort of thing just can't be requested and the developers would most likely consider it too small a service for all of Wikimedia. The best you could do is get screenshots and upload them as images. -withinfocus 19:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I suspected that would probably be a problem, but I figured there was no harm in throwing it out there. We have plenty of diagrams of rendered models in the book. The whole point of JMol is that you can use the mouse to rotate them around which gives you a much better 3-D perspective of the molecules. Frequently, in organic chemistry, students are encouraged to buy molecule model kits so that they can build molecules and actually spin them around and look at them, because understanding the 3-dimensional aspect of the molecules is just crucial in organic chemistry (as well as biochemistry). That's why we wanted to add it.
And really, it just depends on the person. Personally, I find it very easy to visualize a moderately complex molecule in my head, spin it around and what have you, but this is something that a lot of people don't come by naturally, and these sorts of interactive tools are a great help. Anyway, there's a link to a list of web sites that use it in the text, so people can just use those. -- Pete 19:27, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Just thought I'd mention, JMol actually has a MediaWiki specific extension that's being used on some wikis out there. I doubt that'll make any difference, but just thought I'd mention it. Like I said, it's something that would be useful for several of the sciences. But I certainly understand the difficulties involved in managing a complex of servers and adding software like that is certainly not something to be taken lightly. Anyway, I'm fine without it. It'd just be a nice perk. -- Pete 02:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notification of nominations for Bureaucrats

This is to notify the community that I have made two nominations for bureaucrats. It would be appreciated if you would express your views on the relevant section of WB:RFA#Nominations for bureaucratship. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment on Wikijunior Style Guide

I'd like to invite anyone who has an interest or opinion to comment on the proposed Wikijunior Style Guide on the [[Talk:Wikijunior:Style_Guide|talk page]]. I think that the proposal could be improved in a lot of ways. I do think it's necessary to have some Style guide in place, because many users have noticed problems with various Wikijunior books that are addressed by this guide. In particular, guidelines for accuracy, voice, and age appropriateness are discussed. --xixtas 14:40, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WB:LMOS

Regarding the Wikijunior MoS question and questions that have been fielded about transwikis (mostly on wikipedia talk pages after something is imported), I'm wondering if there's any objection to starting to deploy these redirects?

This would be useful for the second "transwiki cleanup template": {{bookify}}. What I want to do is have a page listing "Wikibooks with Local Manuals of Style", and add redirects in the form of [[Bookname/LMOS]]. This redirect would point to the "policy" pages of books that have policy pages, or otherwise to local variants of the staff lounge, etc.

I added one this morning: Wikijunior/LMOS, though in that case Wikijunior:LMOS would make sense as well, since it's a pseudonamespace covering a lot of different books.

We seem finally to have piqued the interest of a few groups of wikipedians, so aside from Wikibooks:Wikibooks for Wikipedians, having pointers to local Ms of S should help them integrate more easily. Also, having a number of books with LMOS pages will help give authors of new books something to consider when defining the structure of a wikibook. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing PDF link in infobox

I have made a pdf version of the wikibook on Nanotechnology and put it in the commons image:Nanotechnology.pdf. Then the infobox for the book should have a small pdf icon added, linking to the pdf but that didnt happen. I have tried adding the link manually, still no pdf-icon... maybe I misunderstood something - does anyone have a way to trick the icon into presence? Cheers KristianMolhave 22:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont know a thing about infoboxes, i've never used them myself. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvios

Well seeing as I've found it, I better mention it. Are copy vios a big deal or not? If they are not why do we look for them? If they are how come I've found one marked since 10 June 2006. Boy - do we need a date categorisation on maintenance templates --Herby talk thyme 16:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they're a big deal. I'll clean the category now :). --SB_Johnny | talk 21:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for that. However, now got a confusing one - Tactical Combat - has a copyright statement at the bottom AND a GNU free license statement - can both be correct? --Herby talk thyme 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
No, i dont think both can be correct. If you have time, run a google test on the page to see if it is, in fact, a copyvio. That isn't a definative test, but it certainly would show us any obvious problems. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unlicenced images now being flagged

HDBot is now running... all uncategorised images are now being flagged with {{nld}}. We have a fully automated deletion bot available to us, and I think it would be good to let it do its thing within the next week or two. If there's no objection, I will alter the sitenotice to say Warning: Unlicenced images will soon be deleted, using a bot. Please check to be sure you have not uploaded any images without a licence, as they will be deleted without further consideration by a human administrator.

Once the deed is done, I hope we can keep on top of unlicenced images, because running deletion bots is a rather scary thing! --SB_Johnny | talk 21:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me, I'll help out with things once i get back next week. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Thanksgiving

For those of you wikibookians who are american, I want to wish you a happy thanksgiving holiday today. For those of you who are not american, I hope you have a good day none the less. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Thanksgiving was quite fun indeed. --Dragontamer 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks and Happy Thanksgiving to all you guys too. Still recovering from a tryptophan overdose myself... -- Pete 01:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I got to play lots of Risk and eat lots of food...it was fun! Stuffing and turkey sandwiches are my favorite. =D --Iamunknown 23:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the inclusion criteria now?

I have not contributed to Wikibooks for a long while now (except for one contribution in October). But I have poked around a few times and seen some discussion going on. Probably as a result of my mere gloss, I am confused as to what is now accepted at this project. I know that game-guides are not, but what are the consequences of the recent Wikiversity split? Are math and science textbooks not allowed? Anyways, I am considering becoming a bit more active in this project, but I'm confused. Please elaborate. --Iamunknown 00:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure about the game-guides thing, as it isn't mentioned in WB:WIW actually. But I haven't contributed in a while either. Math and Science will always be allowed here. Wikiversity split actually a few years ago, but stayed because they were petitioning for their own server. So basically, Wikiversity was only a part of Wikibooks for a short time. Their goals involve making tutorials, example questions and learning. Our focus is more on textbooks, manuals, and so forth. --Dragontamer 00:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, science is definitely still here. I just started working on the organic chemistry textbook a few weeks ago and there are definitely other science books being worked on here. I'm fairly new to all this myself, but have enjoyed working on the organic chem text a great deal. -- Pete 01:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I was going to start a new section on this, but since it seems somewhat related I decided against it. I notice there are at least three alteranative suggestions for replacing WB:WIW. Wikibooks:What_is_Wikibooks/Unstable, Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal and Wikibooks:Textbooks. Two of which have tags on them suggesting they should be merged, but no indication that any discussion took place for or against doing so. I'm wondering is there are any objections to going ahead and merging all 3 of them? This would cut down on duplicate work and make it easier to work on a common proposal for updating or superceding WB:WIW. --darkYin yang.svglama 02:38, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never seen Wikibooks:Inclusion_criteria/Proposal before, but from what I saw (quickly), I think we should all merge them into Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks/Unstable. They all accomplish the same thing really. --Dragontamer 02:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
All the unofficial "temporary" branches of that policy can really be altered however you see fit, it's all just bookkeeping if you ask me. The inclusion criteria hasn't changed much lately, nothing certainly that you need to worry about. Nothing has been decided specifically about the videogame guides, but many of those guides have been moving themselves to StrategyWiki of their own accord. The guides that have moved to the other wiki are being deleted on our server as forks. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:41, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
From talking to SB_Johnny, I guess I should of been clearer and more direct. I was talking about merging their edit histories as well, not just copying the contents of two of them into the third. Which is what I did earlier today. I've also been editing some of the wording to try to be more consistent. I went with Dragontamer's suggestion and used Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks/Unstable and the other two redirect there. --darkYin yang.svglama 21:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
It's been my understanding that attribution required under the GFDL applies only to the book content, and not to the wikibooks meta-content. If this is the case (and i think it is), we shouldnt need to merge the histories at all. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't doing it for preserving GFDL, but to maintain who did what incase it maters and plus I don't want it to appear as if I did all the work when I didn't. --darkYin yang.svglama 22:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I still can't imagine that the old history information of those pages matters. If you want to try and preserve the history, by all means try, but I think it's a wasted effort. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I already did that earlier in the day, today. --darkYin yang.svglama 23:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks Publication

Currently, I see several books that are ready for true publication, and many more books that would benifit from a nicely formatted PDF file. However; we do not have process to do any kind of publication process. On a w:Capability_Maturity_Model, we are initial. Ad hoc, no real process, and dependant on the skills of individuals.

I think it is time to start thinking seriously about Wikibooks Publication. We have enough books to keep the process full. We need to ask questions like "Why isn't the Ada PDF file on Lula Press?" (and if you look at it, it is quite obvious. Even if the Ada book is complete, you can see that the layout of the PDF is terrible. There is no index, pictures aren't placed well, so on and so forth. It is arguably better to print the "print version" from FireFox than to use that PDF file.

So even if we aren't going for a Lulu publication, we should at least clean up the PDFs lying around this site. LaTeX or Docbook or texinfo it into a simple book. Maybe several books for the purpose of the viewer (I know texinfo supports conditional "compiling", so it would be simpler to have multiple print versions from a single file. I'd expect DocBook and LaTeX to have some kind of similar feature)

But here are some things that we can do regardless of the specific book we are working on.

  • Standard book cover. Check out the O'Reilly series of books for example, or penguin books. Something simple with our logo and enough room for a title is all we need.
  • Standard one page "What is Wikibooks" or "About us" that goes in front of every book.
  • Stylebook. (A, B, and C. Or should we do... A, B and C. ??) Something standard for every book we publish, and layout. This is a lower priority goal, but it does make a difference. The standard layouts from the O'Reilly series or Wrox series makes the entire set of books an easy read. We know what to expect in terms of layout before we open the book, enhancing readability and giving Wikibooks a "style" and touch of professionalism. Somethings in the Stylebook can include...
    • Summaries on Back Cover as well as front cover?
    • How many indecies? Only one index in the very back? Or maybe two or more? One for concepts/phrases and one for keywords? If only one index, then what should the style of it be? Keywords, or concepts?
    • Glossary last, or Index last?
    • How many tables of contents? Short version (no sections listed, only chapters), Long version (parts, chapters, sections and subsections listed), Table of figures, table of images?
    • Style of "new chapter" pages. Quote on every new chapter, or is a simple joke fine? What about the end of chapters?
    • Headers and footers on every page. Should the page number be in a box? Should there be a rule. So on, so forth.

DocBook, LaTeX and texinfo do have things where you can tweek the appearance and make this consistent. (O'Reilly uses their own DocBook format for example in their publishing process).

I know this is a lot all at once, but we really need to start thinking about the massive process of turning wikitext into some kind of book. Also, a process for Wikijunior would be nice as well, but Gabriel Hurley and his job on Big Cats probably has set some kind of standard of what to expect over there. Wikibooks textbooks don't have to be as creative with layouts (Adults don't need attention-grabbing layouts to keep reading. But that helps little kids so Wikijunior needs it) --Dragontamer 03:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and of course, the Stylebook doesn't _have_ to be that strict. But I think that if we are going to be using the Trademark name of Wikibooks, we better turn it into a trademark of high quality. --Dragontamer

I have a few comments here that may or may not be helpful. First, like i mentioned below, I think that we could probably benefit from some kind of "Votes for Good Books" page, or something similar, where books could be nominated, and voted on to receive the title "Good book". This would be similar to the current BOTM and COTM processes, except any number of books could be selected per month. Also, I dont think it's a good idea to try and micromanage the way people create PDF files. Granted, some of the PDF files might not look good, but what we don't want is to have a million PDF files that all look exactly the same. Many books have their own specific ways of formatting/layout, and I dont think we should try and make global changes. However, there are some things that all PDF files should have:
  1. Title Page
  2. Link to the current working version of the book on Wikibooks (possibly with the Wikibooks/wikimedia logos, if necessary)
  3. Table of Contents (preferrably with page numbers, but not required)
  4. Full text of the GFDL
  5. Full text of any other licenses, besides the GFDL, that are used with the images from the book (or perhaps just links to the full text?)
  6. Listing of authors of the book, complient with the GFDL (at least 5 major contributors, or all contributors if less then 5).
I dont know much about DocBook or LaTeX, or anything like that, but I do have Adobe Acrobat Professional, and I would be willing to use that to help improve some of the PDF versions that do exist on here. For an example of my work, you can see Image:Control Systems.pdf. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:54, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
DocBook and LaTeX are similar to programming. Quite literally. I know that in LaTeX, you can make "macros" (basically templates in LaTeX) and it has conditional compiling, registers (to keep track of pages) and stuff like that. You write a source file, then you "compile" it, and nearly everything after that is automatically generated. The Index is automatically generated, the table of contents is automatically generated, stuff like that. Then it spits out a PDF file. I'm not too fond of Latex's standard output, nor of Docbooks, but thats why those guys have style sheets. Texinfo is based on TeX (precursor to LaTeX) and has a nice standard layout, but I'm not sure if we can change it. (all the documentation of texinfo is in texinfo. DocBook has similar capabilities, but I'm not fond of the XML system they got. Kinda bulky... need an XML editor to enjoy it really).
And yeah, I do realize that it is kind of imposing to make a wikibooks wide stylebook, but when I see the O'Reilly series, it makes it feel like it would really be worth it. I don't think authors would really care whether the "note" is on the left side on the margins, or in the text in a gray box for example. But when a whole publication does it consistently one way, not just with a single book but throughout a series, there is this unity and real professionalism that emerges. Take a look at O'Reilly books or Wrox yourself. Or "XXXX for dummies" and cliff notes for example. All their layouts are unique and standard to the company, and that is something I think Wikibooks should aim for. --Dragontamer 17:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I own many of the O'Reilly books, but I dont think that we should necessarily try to do what they do. I say let the authors of the individual books handle the formatting. Although, we should specify that a book should be formatted in a uniform way (all chapters look the same, etc). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
This is just to say that I'm currently working on a wikitex -> pdf converter based on Latex ( http://sourceforge.net/projects/wikipdf/ ). The project is undergoing deep changes, so you might want to use the cvs version (wikipdf-flexbison branch). At the moment, it handles (or tries to):
  • images (they are automatically downloaded from the server when needed)
  • equations
  • references
  • hyperlinks (both internal and external)
  • templates
Tables are being implemented. The output of the program is currently very rough (I'm not a programmer...), but I think at the moment is is already useful for someone who wants to generate a pdf version of a book, as it will automatically download all you need (you only have to provide the list of pages you want in your book), and make most of the conversion into latex (and in a sort of XML at the same time).
there are quite a lot of dependencies, as it uses a wiki -> xml converter written in flex and bison (flexbisonparse, from the mediawiki repository). To use wikipdf, you therefore need: flex, bison, makeutils (for flexbisonparse), python (I work with 2.4), Inkscape or rsvg (to handle svg pictures), imagemagick (for all other pictures formats) and of course LaTeX. It might therefore be easier to make it work under Linux, but it should be portable.
If there is an interrest for wikipdf, it should be possible to put a running version on a server to directly generate pdfs or zip files containing the LaTeX file and the corresponding images.
Any python enthusiast is of course welcome to speed up the development CyrilB 21:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Book:Futurology ?

I am a sysop on the Future Wikia and as thus I am representing the wikia in asking whether or not I may transport some of the information regarding futurology and predictions to Wikibooks. I've made over a thousand contributions on the Future Wikia and I have had experience as an admin and bureaucrat on the Future Wikia for several months. If it's agreeable to you, I'd also like to apply for admin status on Wikibooks as well. Thank you.--Yunzhong Hou

Wikiversity is a seperate project from Wikibooks these days. --darkYin yang.svglama 03:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, how about wikibooks?
Admins are voted on here on wikibooks. If the general concensus of voters agree that the said person is good enough or has earned enough trust to be an Admin, a Bureaucrat turns them into an admin. And usually, it takes a while before enough trust is built. We have a good amount of active Admins right now, so I would expect the voting to be a little strict. I do recall one guy who was turned down for Adminship because he "only" had 600 edits for example.
It isn't the edit count that counts though. It is how often you participate in catching vandals, and how well you know Wikibooks policy. No offense to you, but you haven't really demonstrated that in any of your posts (maybe you are just not interested in making policy or catching vandals, which is perfectly fine)
Adminship isn't that big a deal anyway. If you want a page deleted, just mark it with a {{delete}} tag and be done with it. Deletions are rarely as good as a redirect, and anyone can revert pages. Bannings are done so rarely, and if you are to ever do a ban, you waste hours on the IRC or patroling the RC looking for possible vandals :-p --Dragontamer 04:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know anything about Futurology, but a quick look up on Wikipedia about what Futurology is, suggests its still an evolving science, so it may possibly not qualify as being something likely taught in a college course for example or might be considered original research. --darkYin yang.svglama 04:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
If there are some clearly developed parts of it, then I see no reason why not. There is the Lucid Dreaming book for instance, which does note when some of its methods are unconfirmed or documented, or are original research. --Dragontamer 04:20, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps. I was going by some rule of thumb like "if there's not even enough for an entire article on Wikipedia, then.." which seems to be a good bases for determaning whether or not there's enough information out there to even consider making it a book and enough interest for it to be anything more then a stub. All I found was a paragraph on Futurology describing it as evolving. Hense my comment. I may have misunderstood some exspect of policy, but I think the original research bits in Lucid Dreaming may need to be removed, since you say that such exists in it. If there is indeed some well establish and clearly developed parts of Futorology I agree that it would be fine here. --darkYin yang.svglama 04:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I'd hate for that to be so. I mean, it did win BoTM even with those bits in, so I figured that it was one of those exceptions to policy. Lucid Dreaming itself isn't original research either, so I don't think it is a big deal. I mean, rumors and such do exist in real textbooks anyway, but are clearly marked as rumors. Lucid Dreaming does do that. --Dragontamer 04:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting Lucid Dreaming was original research, I was referring to whatever orginal research is contained within the book that may require being removed from it and not the Lucid Dreaming book itself as possibly needing deleted. You could be right, there might be exceptions to the policy that allow for it which Lucid Dreaming makes use of that I'm not aware of. If it is an exception to the rule, then knowing what the exception is would be good for me to know about. If you think about being professional though, as you are suggesting in another section, rumors and such I think are generally not discussed in textbooks unless it advances some espect of the subject being discussed and inhances the learning experence. --darkYin yang.svglama 05:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, I just know that there are a wide variety of textbooks, and not all of them have to be specifically professional. Magic books for example, can easily be considered textbooks. Nonetheless, due to the nature of the material (which is entertainment for fun and profit), it can be significantly less formal than say, a Biology textbook, and still qualify as a Textbook. I can note a Card Tricks book with large amounts of jokes, sarcasm and rumors in the text.
Lucid Dreaming would fall into this "exception" (kind of) because it is more of a fun subject. It is a very clean, very safe fun subject. Rumors and original research is definitly not allowed in say, Chemestry for obvious reasons of course, which would be the other side of the spectrum. --Dragontamer 05:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I had always assumed Lucid Dreaming was a simple matter of fact. Not that I've ever done any research on it, but simply because I used to do it quite a bit and sort of came upon the method by sheer accident. I haven't done it in many years, but I would have to say it's quite real. But now that you mention it, I suppose there's really no way to verify it since you can't exactly record someone's dreams and play them back. Oh well, sorry for going off on a tangent, but I was just kind of surprised that there was any skepticism about it. -- Pete 06:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I don't think it is skeptical. I have lucid dreamed myself (using the methods in the book. It ain't worth the sleep-paralysis afterwards IMO, but was an interesting experience). But there are parts in the book that say unconfirmed in it. But Lucid_Dreaming:_Induction_Techniques#Other_techniques suggests original research, but IMO, it isn't that big a problem here. The project has a clear goal, the book in general is focused on proven or documented techniques, and the "others" section adds to the book. --Dragontamer 15:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry to continue on this tangent, but what do you mean "sleep paralysis"? As in this kind of sleep paralysis? I've never experienced that. I actually found lucid dreaming quite addictive. Of course, like a lot of people, I often had the bad habit of ruining it by trying to bring sex into it, which seems to always wake you. -- Pete 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reset tabs--futurology

I've gone through several chapters of this book, and am not comfortable with a lot of it.

  • Future/End_of_Civilization notes that it's "from wikipedia", but leaves no link to the article (thus a copyright violation). If the other chapters are being copied from future.wikia without attribution, these are copyvios too.
  • Most of the chapters of this book are a applications of futurology, rather than a discussion of the field and its methods (in fact, they're just predictions, with little or no discussion of method whatsoever). This is precisely the kind of OR/non-textbook sort of materials that the foundation (and specifically Jimbo) doesn't want on wikibooks.

While a textbook on the methods, history, and application of futurology might be interesting, this book seems to be nothing but predictions. The copyvio problem is also rather serious, we should probably continue this discussion on VfD, rather than the Staff Lounge. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] System for adding new wikibooks and suggesting hot picks

Hi. I was thinking there should be a unified system for adding new wikibooks and suggesting hot picks, especially for helping new users.

First, I noticed a few newcomers were wondering about editing Template talk:New to add their new wikibooks.

I recently put a link in the template that says "Start a book" and links to Help:How to start a book. But as Peterb323 pointed out on the talk page, the explanation to add books doesn't make any sense as written.

"Note: If you are a new user, you cannot place your book on the bookshelf by yourself. Once you add your book to the list new Wikibooks, then someone will put it there for you."

Since the "Add new Wikibook links >>" text links to editing Template:New (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Template:New&action=edit), there is no second list which new user can add their books to. There is only the list in the template.

Therefore, I suggust we just let new users add their own books. (See more explanation for the "add-it-yourself" system below.)

Second, Template:Highlighted uses a different system, where "Suggest hot picks >>" links to editing Section 3 on the templates talk page to list hot picks (http://en.wikibooks.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Highlighted&action=edit&section=3). Then I guess any of these suggestions may or may not be transferred to the following 7 pages based on the name of the day of the week: ex., Wikibooks:Featured books/Monday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Tuesday, etc. Then the actual day of the week determines which one will appear on Template:Highlighted, which in turn appears on the main page.

I understand a desire to have "rotatable" hightlighted books, but this system seem overly complex, especially for making changes.

Can anyone think of a way of unifying these two systems? In addition, think we should have some easy-to-understand explanation of adding links to new Wikibooks and hot picks for newcomers. Be it either a suggestion based system or add-it-yourself based system.

I personally favor the add-it-yourself system as these templates don't seem to be updated that often as they are now. As stands now, all one needs to do is log in to edit the template. If a book appears on Template:New or Template:Highlighted that someone doesn't like, the book link will be on the main page, and the person that doesn't like it can remove the link from the template.

Sorry for such a long explanation, but I feel some change should be made. Thanks, Hyad 06:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I dont see why people can't add their own books to a bookshelf, and I agree that people should be able to do that if they know how to do it, and they do it correctly. A big problem however is that bookshelves become flooded with stubs, or even red links to books that were going to be worked, on, but never quite made it.
I do not agree with you, necessarily, that people should just be adding to the "Hot Picks" list anytime they see fit, or that the process of adding books to that list should be made easier. We don't want every author to just add their new books to that list because that particular author thinks their own work is good (every author thinks thier own books are good). We do need, however, some sort of standardized process for incorporating good books into that list, and making good book stand out from the crowd, but that would be a community effort, and not just something that anybody should be able to do. Maybe we need to create a "Votes for Good Books" page, where books can be nominated to be listed as a "good book", and the community can vote on it. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Whiteknight. While it's great that individuals have a great deal of control over the content of this site, for things like this, I believe it should be left in the hands of people with a better picture of the site overall instead of their own little niche. For myself, I have interests in several books here, and one more than the others, and that's where my attention is focused. I neither want, nor expect, nor should I be expected, to deal with site-wide issues like that, even as they relate to the book(s) I work on, beyond perhaps consultation from admins/bureaucrats when it affects the content I'm working on. Some jobs are best left to admins and that's what they're there for. I personally feel very strongly that this is something that should stay with admins.
As Whiteknight points out, individuals working on a book are going to be biased and their judgements can't always be depended on as to whether their work is deserving of being on the "Hot Picks" list. Nothing has made this clearer to me than, in my work on the Organic Chemistry book, to find many chapters marked as 75% or even 100% done, by previous authors when, in my opinion, these chapters are often maybe 25% done, if that. These sorts of judgements should be more objective than the individual authors are capable of. -- Pete 18:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
So, if I'm understanding your responses correctly, an "add-it-yourself" system for Template:New and the suggestion based system for Template:Highlighted seems to be the consensus (at least so far). Does anyone having any ideas for improving either or both systems as they stand now? Perhaps, for Template:New we could provide a clearer explanation of adding links.
For Template:Highlighted, I noticed it's kind of hard add any new suggestions. For example, Wikibooks:Featured books/Tuesday hasn't been touched since the day it was created in June. Wikibooks:Featured books/Saturday simply redirects to Tuesday. (Check out all the days of the week for yourself: Wikibooks:Featured books/Monday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Tuesday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Wednesday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Thursday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Friday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Saturday, Wikibooks:Featured books/Sunday.) I remember adding a suggestion a while back (it was for Programming:Tcl) and while it still on the suggestion list, no one has added it, denyed it or said anything. This isn't just mine, I think many of the suggestions since the rotation system was created in June haven't been added unless people add them themselves. And if someone does add a person's suggestion, the original person who made the suggestion wouldn't know which "day of the week" it was added to. Not only that, but many hot pick candidates have not been removed even though they were already added to one of the days of the week pages.
Perhaps someone could create a complete list of all the "hot picks" and use some sort of random number generator to randomly select a certain number of links from the list to be displayed on the main page. (I'm not quite sure how feasible this would be with MediaWiki software.) Also, if people want a suggestion based system, perhaps there should be a way for suggestions to "default" to being added (or deleted) if no one makes any comments for adding or removing a hot pick candidate. -Hyad 05:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Help!

I have decided that Neil Armstrong: A Biography should be deleted because of two things. First, I created it and no one has edited it. Secondly, I don't think wikibooks needs a biography of Neil Armstrong. So can someone put it on vfd???

Thanks a lot. --Tannersf 22:16 November 25, 2006

Done. I just tagged it for speedy deletion based on criterion five, A page that is nominated for deletion by the original author with no other contributors. --Iamunknown 00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Incredible Tide

"Cut & paste", copyvio, just bad? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

+ this now The Strange White Doves\u2014True Mysteries of Nature. Given the quantity and time has to be "cut & paste" - views --Herby talk thyme 16:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

  • I've added a speedy delete template. It's a work of fiction so therefore not relevent for Wikibooks? Forgive me if I'm wrong though. Xania 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Because it was a copyright violation, I deleted it immediatly. But if anyone disagrees, please message me. --Dragontamer 18:57, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
So do you want to do the other one The Strange White Doves\u2014True Mysteries of Nature? --Herby talk thyme 22:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That one is not a speedy delete, but should be a transwiki to wikisource. Supposedly its copyright expired (according to User Talk:Morene12abaa3 anyway). I'll leave her a message. Actually, that first one I deleted might be one as well. I'll leave as is, and proceed depending on how Morene responds. --Dragontamer 02:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] cookbook - offensive recipe

There is an offensive, and most likely false, recipe for "Spicy Australian Placenta" in the wiki cookbook.

Sorry, this has been discussed ages ago. People (a) eat placenta (b) use recipes when they do so. Kellen T 16:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete naming schemes

I know that all wikibooks need to follow the nested naming scheme. For those that do not, however, and instead follow an obsolete naming scheme using colons or dashes or something else, is there a cleanup template with which to tag the main book page? Cheers, Iamunknown 20:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

{{cleanup-NC}} what you are after? Templates generally (don't feel bad I couldn't find them at first!) WB:TM --Herby talk thyme 21:47, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Bestlyriccollection

I know we are tolerant. This really could be considered spam tho. I have removed a similar amount from the talk page and requested the user address this --Herby talk thyme 09:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Another one? User talk:Businesschannel1. The name alone makes me a bit sus - I know it's a talk page but I do think Wikibooks needs to bear in mind that with WP getting harder to spam easier targets will be sought --Herby talk thyme 10:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know why they're doing that, but user talk pages aren't indexed by google, so if it's googlespam, it won't work :). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
User pages are tho (which the other one is) --Herby talk thyme 11:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you sure about that? I thought it was only the main namespace which was indexed. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
You reckon? [1] - go on try it :-) --Herby talk thyme 11:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Wierd :). Probably best to just blank it and leave a warning then. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

done on both --Herby talk thyme 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Need Quick Review

Hi, I'm new and would like to make sure I'm doing this right (templates, chapters, formatting, etc.) If someone would be kind enough to give a quick review: Free_Direct_Instruction_Science_1 Thanks a ton! --Harriska2 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfDs - a third way?

As some may know I've taken some interest in this process recently. By and large the views of the community are clear. However I see one at the moment which - to me - does not have that clarity. The page was listed for VfD and then when the process was effectively complete and an editor arrived who wished to address the problem. That editor acknowledges that the task will not be easy. By way of a test I have suspended that vote for one month. I do realise that we could close it as keep and then re-list but this way seems to leave some pressure on the editor and us to review the matter in a timely way. As with everything here this is not a concrete action so if anyone wishes to revert it the link you need is [2] (assuming no other edits since). However if you do revert it please come up with a way of dealing with what I am sure is a rare event in a fair and positive way. I was going to put the Future in this category too but having read the recent comments I ain't that brave! Over to you folk, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

It's generally my position that it is better to improve an existing article then to delete it outright, although I also acknowledge that some books simply will not be improved ever. However, if there is an editor who is active, and who claims to want to help, i say we should certainly let them try. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Whiteknight's position above. I do think it is a difficult task to deceide whether a book is likely to be improved. I'm unsure if a month-long waiting period would be constructive but don't think it would be too bad to close the debate with a note that the consensus is that the book needs to be improved if it should be allowed to stay. If we implement the sub-page method, past VfDs will be easy to find. The page won't be listed anywhere (though the sub-page could be categorized) and would only be renominated someone noticed it again (if no-one does, it hardly is harming anyone, right?). --Swift 16:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess I would see it as a very rare event (in this case the VfD was actually closed when an editor arrived and wanted to improve it). I looked at User talk:Sean Heron where you had posted and the editor responded with the fact it was going to take time. Delete didn't seem right and keep - I would argue - was against what had been the closure, I thought compromise might be useful. Personally I still think it should be deleted and that, given a continuing lack of editing, it will be - but I'm trying to be less of a deletionist than I am! --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that it is (and should be) a rare case that deletion debates get put on hold like that. I fear that instituting such a way to facilitate it will do little but encourage it. I think we can easily solve these situations on a per instance basis. --Swift 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Newbies and page naming

No idea what to do about this but I guess there must have been around 6 folk in the past three or four days who I've seen not following naming policy on a new book (or existing one) by not having subpages correctly named (they leave them as additional book names). I have always placed the welcome template plus a bit more info on naming so far but it seems pretty consistent (mis)behavior. Any thoughts? --Herby talk thyme 12:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Often this happens because people use redlinks to make a new page... the TOC of a new book often lists the planned chapters just using [[chapter]] rather than [[/chapter/]] or [[../chapter/]]. It's one of the major differences between wikimarkup here and wikimarkup on Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
How's this look: {{qr-chapter}}? --SB_Johnny | talk 12:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Kinda "bites" newbie a bit but a great start from my point of view. Tone it a bit to point to help on naming policy? --Herby talk thyme 12:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
How about seeing if one of the bots can have a feature added to take care of this? Renaming pages that are not following proper naming convention and fixes page links to follow the proper naming convention. Maybe even inform the major contributors or mention it on the book's main talk page when its done. --darkYin yang.svglama 12:59, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
So a template for the book talk pages - good idea. There will always be people that don't read but at least we would have places to point them and something for their user page (Johnny's comment below) --Herby talk thyme 13:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly SB_Johnny. I've created many pages in the wrong place and it's usually because I created them from red links. Not sure what can be done about it though. Xania 12:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW - how about an equivalent user page one. "great to have you here - we do have a naming policy - blah". Not a new welcome but one to go after the welcome one? --Herby talk thyme 12:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, on both counts... we should probably have a short, to-the-point help page about naming and linking to book chapters to link from (a friendlier version of) that template. A friendly template for the userpage would help too: it really is a bit confusing when you're accustomed to linking on Wikipedia. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know about short and to-the-point help page, but I was discussing including such a help inside an existing help page with Herby, once some duplications involving it are taken care of. Basically there's already some help pages for book and page creation in which I think this would fit nicely into. --darkYin yang.svglama 13:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I guess I'm just thinking that the current help pages aren't always helpful, because they give you too much all at once. Having a short, concise discussion of how (and why) chapters are named and linked might work better, with a "see also" bullet list at the bottom. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:25, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks:Local_manuals_of_style#Basic_structure has at least some info about chapter structure and naming.--SB_Johnny | talk 14:45, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
BTW, as long as we're making templates: something like {{Qr-twwp}} might be handy for Wikipedia dumps. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:11, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't know how difficult this would be, but when you go to a page that doesn't exist (red link or in search box) and it asks you if you want to create the page, why not simply add a notice that says, "Please be sure to follow the proper naming convention" and give a link to the policy as well as a simple example of a properly named page within a book. Just an idea. -- Pete 15:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Great Idea!!!... now it's just a matter of finding the mediawiki page :/. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Erm, and having a help page to link to would be nice as well... the mediawiki page is MediaWiki:Noarticletext, if anyone wants to play with it (admins only, I'm afraid... anyone else can make a sandbox for it). --SB_Johnny | talk 16:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Here too: MediaWiki:Newarticletext --SB_Johnny | talk 16:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
In response to above, I have never been under the impression that our Help pages have ever been the least bit helpful. Unfortunately, fixing them to be more helpful is too large a task for any one user to undertake all at once. On top of that, some of the help pages now have all that fancy formatting, which looks good, but makes it difficult to edit/reformat/refactor the help pages to improve them. Maybe that should be our site-wide wikiproject (in lieu of the BOTM and COTM things). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 15:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
SBJohnny, is this a different page? Or does it take you to one of the others? I don't want to hit the "create this page" link unnecessarily, for obvious reasons. -- Pete 21:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Whiteknight. You're right. The help pages have never been much help. Most newbies wouldn't even be able to find them and when they do they're just too long and detailled. A big bold message on the edit page (above the weird insert character section) would be more useful... Xania 21:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, it's always more difficult to find a solution to the problem then to simply complain about the problem, and it's more difficult still to actually implement a good solution. At the moment, I am little more then a complainer. However, i do think we need to "fix" the help pages, and I do think that we should follow some of these guidelines:
  1. The pages should be short and direct
  2. Complicated or esoteric points should be moved to specialized pages (or deleted all together)
  3. Pages should be simple, and easy to expand/edit
  4. the information that people need, especially new wikibookians, should be easily and quickly accessible.
Those are just my ideas, I have no idea how to go in an implement them. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 23:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
I would add to those guidelines that the contents of the help pages should follow common Wikibooks practises, such as following naming conventions, use little word linking, use table of contents instead of "see also" sections, etc. So that new wikibookians can become familar with these things through good examples. --darkYin yang.svglama 23:20, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
You mean that a help page should read like a wikibooks chapter? If so, I disagree... the vast majority of new contributors are going to be coming from wikipedia or other wikis, and they should look like a "help page", not a book. Maybe "Help:" needs a WB:LMOS, eh? --SB_Johnny | talk 00:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yes I mean a help page should read like a wikibooks chapter. Why shouldn't the help be arranged to read like a "help book"? A LMOS for "Help:" would be helpful. --darkYin yang.svglama 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] reset tabs (newbies, page naming, and help pages)

I guess that's sorta the thing... people shouldn't have to read a whole book before they start contributing (and even if they should, they most likely won't). Personally I almost never read instruction manuals front to back :). --SB_Johnny | talk 12:45, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to be very like Johnny in that respect. First stab at a user naming info template (& it the first one I've done so be nice to me but improve it too!) Template:Naming info. --Herby talk thyme 12:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I mentioned on IRC but forgot to mention here... User:SBJohnny/Sandbox4 is a start on making it simple. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
RC patrollers see everything! It looked (& looks) good to me - but I was taking yours as a great improvement on the help page? --Herby talk thyme 13:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the idea of a "help book" is a good idea. We can get around Johnny's objection by breaking the help pages into neat little chapters, and people can pick and choose what chapters to read or not read. We can have a central TOC for the help book, and arrange the topics by order of importance, with the chapters that are most important to a newbie at the top, and the more esoteric help topics at the bottom. It would work like a set of individual "help pages", but with the added organizational structure that is expected in a book. Also, I do think that we should format the help pages to look like how a good book should look: leading by example is a very good practice. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added some contents of {{welcome}} to MediaWiki:Newarticletext to provide a greater level of help as was suggested above. --darkYin yang.svglama 15:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Worthwhile edit - thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Out of interest just spotted a "new book" coming (on RC) which has nice redlinks that will lead to incorrectly named pages. Used a modified version of my template above - it will be interesting to see what happens --Herby talk thyme 15:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beyond me!

I have no idea whether this is worth bothering anyone with but (if you can be bothered!) take a look at the history here User:Immortalgeek. Virtually no contributions and a variety of IPs putting very similar comments on it. Not harmful, not seen it on any other page, not even sure if it is worth reverting --Herby talk thyme 19:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

And another edit just now - weird --Herby talk thyme 21:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
How bizare! Xania 21:54, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
It's not that weird, plenty of people spend lots of time making edits to their user pages. I know i've spent way too much time on mine. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:36, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

But the edits are all very similar and usually contain unusual spelling mistakes. There is a history of a few reverts on there which suggest some kind of pattern also seen on Wikipedia. Xania 22:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've noticed a pattern surrounding this: "this is a cool site" gibberish/vandalsim being added to talk pages. Another one just came up within the past hour or so, and I think we have a group of silly people on our hands. Blocking seems (to me) an extreme response, but I don't know what else to do. --SB_Johnny | talk 23:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
So long as this silliness is restricted to their own talk pages (or the talk pages of people who don't mind), I dont think we need to make any kind of response, extreme or otherwise. Talk pages, for better or for worse, are open to this kind of stuff and we shouldnt try and regulate them too much. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Bear in mind that these are IPs editing registered users pages (tho I certainly do not think it is blockable, way too many IPs for a start) --Herby talk thyme 08:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Still going on - odd idea - would it be worth semi pretecting the user page and see what happens then? --Herby talk thyme 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Update: some of these are hitting content pages as well as talks, often blanking as well as saying "nice site". The wikipedians have some of those IPs blocked as open proxies or "zombies"... similar strange edits going on there. I recommend any blocks done on these vandals be noted with "nice site vandal" or something similar, so someone (probably me) can list them on w:WP:OP and/or meta:WP:OP. It's a shared problem, and the wikipedia project in particular has a "staff" that runs proxy checkers. We should also keep up on blocking the confirmed proxies there as well. --SB_Johnny | talk 17:29, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned flags

I came across the Portuguese Wikibook, clicked on the flags, and noticed they were (mostly) unsynched with the high-quality .svg copies at Wikimedia Commons. I changed the file names, cleaned up a little bit, and am reporting these orphaned, obsolete flags. They are Image:Brazil flag medium.png, Image:Portugal flag medium.png, Image:Angola flag medium.png, Image:Mozambique flag medium.png, Image:Guinea bissau flag medium.png, Image:East timor flag medium.png, Image:Cape verde flag medium.png, and Image:SãoTomé and P flag medium.png. I tentatively suggest that they are deleted as obsolete and (now) orphaned. Perhaps with a kind note to their uploader. Sorry for the mass of blue. Cheers, Iamunknown 04:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Additional note: they are many more flags listed here. They would have to be replaced with their counterparts at Commons, but they may be candidates for deletion. --Iamunknown 04:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: I keep finding more untagged images (which I know will be deleted) but which are specifically orphaned and obsolete. Where should I list them? I don't want to flood the main page with links! I only have two more now, Image:Charles Darwin.png and Image:Darwin ape.png, which used to be on this page, and will be stopping for the night. But where should others be put in the future? Cheers, Iamunknown 04:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Question answered on IRC: tag with them {{Nowcommons}}. --Iamunknown 23:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Software documentation

I'd like the community's oppinion on whether software documentation is within the scope of the Wikibooks project.

I found a few documentation wikibooks around but not wanting to fall for the is-ought fallacy and since I found the line drawn at game guides might just separate it from the "educational material" fundamental rule, I thought I'd request comments.

The software in question is called uim (Universal Input Method) and is used to input characters not available directly throught the keyboard mapping (e.g. a latin keyboard can then be used to input \u3072\u3089\u304c\u306a\u3001\u30ab\u30bf\u30ab\u30ca\u3068\u6f22\u5b57). The documentation will introduce the concepts of Input Methods, how uim implements these, which tools are a part of it and how to use and customize it.

I see this as a good addition to Wikibooks as think it could well benefit the human condition. My caution is largely due to my desire not to get this into trouble some months down the road. --Swift 02:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

For myself, I would think that software documentation is completely within the perview of Wikibooks. The issues related to the computer video game books, however, would suggest that there is certainly an element within the Wikibooks community that would feel different from myself, especially as I was a very outspoken supporter of keeping the video game guides on Wikibooks. I do think, however, that you can make a case that computer software documentation is much more likely to be used in a textbook situation than perhaps a guide to playing the World of Warcraft, but I think it is mainly a matter of perspetive and the sort of computer software you are describing.
You are very justified with your fears that such content might be deleted some time down the road, and it is reasonable to ask the Wikibooks community this question in general, as the issue from my perspetive has not been completely resolved. The whole wording of the anti-video games policy is so vague that from a certain point of view you could say that a book about Microsoft Word should be deleted as it describes a walk-through of some computer software. --Rob Horning 05:38, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree wholeheartedly that software guides should be included. They are instructional resources, they teach valuable subjects (well, for some software). However, due to the original research clause, it's probably against policy to write a users manual for a peice of software that doesnt currently have documentation. Also, wikibooks shouldnt be a webhost for software projects that want to write documentation for new software. However, for popular software packages, additional wiki documentation could be a wonderful thing. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the original research clause, it has been discussed here in the Staff Lounge an also on Wikibooks talk:Original research that the phrase original research is not necessarily fitting for Wikibooks as it is for Wikipedia. SBJohnny listed a number of things which would (and therefore currently do) fall under original research. These include projects which are well accepted projects. I proposed that we limit the clause to scientific research. I never followed up on that and since Wikibooks:Original research hasn't seen much action lately, I'll take that suggestion to WB:WIW.
"wikibooks shouldnt be a webhost". Though I understand the argument that people shouldn't use Wikibooks just to save themselves space, I think we should judge the worth of a book on its potential, not the authors' alternative hosting facilities. I'd liken software projects to class projects both of which would be developing the document outside Wikibooks if they could not use the venue and are creating quite specific projects to which perhaps no-one outside that group might be qualified to contribute. I hope that software developers will be as warmly welcomed to Wikibooks as classes have been.
"However, for popular software packages". A few questions: Why is popular important? If an obscure book is educational, that should be grounds for keeping it with the project (we have a book on stamp collecting, for god's sake! ;-)). How would you propose to measure the popularity (as a percentage of: the human population, those who have access to it, those who use that type of software, those who run the platform for which it is available, etc. or some combination of these)? What happens if the popularity wanes?
Furthermore; the software I proposing the documentation of enables east asians to write Chinese, Japanese and Korean characters using a western keyboard. The people living in these countries (and this doesn't take into account expatriates) represent over 23% of the world population. Given the fast rise of China, the low price of *nix software and China's look to Linux as their OS of choice (mainly, I understand, for transparency reasons), a user handbook could become enormously popular. If we wait till the software is popular, there will be far less need for it and few would read it.
I don't mean the last paragraph to be an argument for acceptance, but an example of how difficult it would be to estimate the prospective popularity of new software.
Thank you both for your comments on this issue. I think it is a very important task to get these issues sorted out. --Swift 06:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VfD page

Ok sorry about it but don't hire a cleaner if you don't want the rubbish dealt with! The category revealed a number of pages still tagged that weren't current. Basically bad closings and an odd one that never made it to the listing. I've done some but have stopped or the page will be overwhelmed. So

  1. Try and get these cleared as quick as we can so that we can focus on current stuff
  2. Please someone clear the games ones up. As I said on the RfA page - close them one way or another - it isn't my subject. This will allow us to focus on actual current ones.

Thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

OK the category now only contains current listings (other than query listed below). So anyone placing a VfD and not listing it or closing a VfD without finishing properly (removed VfD tag and place survived tag) will have me after them! --Herby talk thyme 15:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsolved archive

OK I reckon this is a wind up to test cleaners - I just can't see the punch line! It was marked for VfD in 2004 - the archives don't go back that far. Do I list it or just removed the tag --Herby talk thyme 14:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd say list. --Swift 18:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Look at this!

Take a look at Help:Purge. ???????????! \u2014The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qwerty (talk \u2022 contribs) 04:05, 3 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Does depend on what you are trying to do when you say "Purge"? If you explain I'm sure one of us will answer. By the way the post on the help page should have been in the discussion tab (or here) so I've taken it off --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Apologies I see that it was not you who placed the query - I've put a message on the editor's talk page - thanks for letting us know --Herby talk thyme 10:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Is this okay?

Is it okay if I start my Wikijunior book, Fun With Nature? I have it as a suggestion on Wikijunior but I know it won't be nominated for awhile. Tannersf 12:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

While I do think it is a good idea it looks as though you maybe taking on rather a lot of new projects. You have started some very big books however most of them seem to have mostly headings and sub headings. Would it not be better to work on these before tackling new ones? --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you say. I will just continue working on those projects. Tannersf 13:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I've been in this same boat, where I've started a large number of books, but I simply don't have the time/energy to work on all of them. To that extent, some of my books have become really good, but others have stagnated. A suggestion which I have, and that I definately think you would benefit from, is that you should create outlines for books that you want to create in the future on your user page. Once you have outlines written out, post messages here and on talk pages to invite other editors to read over your outlines and make suggestions. Once you have your outlines created, and you have attracted some interest from other contributors, you can introduce your new books, one at a time, at regular intervals (I know I was trying to create 1 new book every month, for a while, but I havent created a new one recently). This way, When you have time to create a new book, you can simply introduce one of your outlines, and when you dont have time, your other ideas don't become stubs and get deleted. Read my Guide for writing new books, for some suggestions about the process. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intermediate Mathematics - Wikijunior

I would like to suggest a vote if immediate action can be made to form a mathematics book on Wikijunior. This is an effort to lay foundations for other books to be made, to focus on the deprived area of textbooks and to compile a book which is generic in its syllabus. This book will be made on Wikijunior, aimed at 11 - 14 with older and younger editions to be made after this is completed, though I will also need for Wikijunior to extend their age range. I will be gratetful if voting can commence here now as well as at the following link new title suggestions. --Herraotic 19:05, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You could create the book and list in the non-canonical books list, especially if you plan on writing a substantial amount of content yourself. The subject seems extremely broad to me. There is a book that is currently second in the voting for next quarter (beginning in January) called "Fifth Grade Math" you might consider supporting that book. --xixtas 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
When I have the time I will produce the book on Wikibooks mostly with the aid of my notes. --Herraotic 00:01, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I notice that user 82.10.207.212 has requested a speedy delete for this book - Wikijunior_Mathematics - whoever this user is says that the book should not be there because it's not passed the 'candidate process'... does this seem fair? this book was created by a new user and this just scares people away. I created my book Wikijunior_Europe only a few days and I didn't pass the candidate process vote either. Is this actual Wikibook policy or are there special rules for Wikijunior? Xania 00:25, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
The speedy delete tag was not appropriate for any number of reasons in my view. Personally, I'm against deleting books simply because they didn't follow the new title policy. I only speak for myself, though. --xixtas 04:56, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I dont think there are specific rules for wikijunior, but the candidate voting was created to ensure that all new wikijunior books would get good attention from the community. If you create a new book, and if you are going to actively contribute to it, I see no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 05:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Help page project

This has come up in several topics on this page... since we seem to have given up on the policy of the week for a while, maybe we could collaborate instead on help pages, welcoming new users, etc. A lot of this of course relies on policies, but we can double up on that when the need arises.

One way we could try to organise it is to build a wikiproject on this, nominate candidates for collaboration there, and then announce them here (whichever one has the most votes). Wikibooks:Wikiproject on Help Pages seems as good a name as any, WB:HP for a shortcut.

I think this would be helpful, because most of the folks posting on the SL these days are interested in getting new contributors to the project, and having the help section well organised could go a long way towards that. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Go take a look at this please - there is an idea that Herby & I have tried to cook up to help get folks involved. See you there --The staff at Wikibooks 10:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Ummm ... I don't mean to bite, but could you please clarify the purpose of this? And who is The Staff ( talk | email | contribs )? Herby? We already have a list of wikibookians (can't remember where), general staff discussion takes place here and specific discussions (such as wikiproject) should rather take place on specific pages (in the project namespace). --Swift 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
"since we seem to have given up on the policy of the week for a while". :-( Yes, this is largely my fault as I haven't resumed this work since my brief time off WB. I think the help pages are in dire need for work, but still feel I'd like to concentrate my efforts on policy for now. --Swift 18:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I guess all I can say is go take a look at the Wikibooks:Wikiproject on Help Pages. We need to involve more people. We may have a list of wikibookians but the one I'm working on is current/active ones who may wish to know more. We need to talk to people and we need "staff" however you define that. The project is Johnny's so at least I can't be blamed for that! BTW don't consider I'm bitten but back into the "doghouse" for now! --Herby talk thyme 18:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Winter break is coming up for me within the next few weeks, and I am going to have plenty of time to really get my hands dirty around here. This help project seems like a good idea, but We can't afford to become myopic, we have alot to do around here (help pages, policy, cleanup, etc). --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Bulletin board

I would like to make this page more active, posting messages and news to the bulletin board. Also, I would like to encourage all wikibookians, big and small, to watch that page for changes. If you have a peice of news (new book, new policy, new admins, big changes, etc), post a quick message on the bulletin board. Hopefully, this will be a method that all wikibookians can stay involved in the project. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:03, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I am so in agreement with this. Two points
  1. Can/should someone amend the welcome template to suggest strongly that new editors put the Bulletin Board on the watchlist (& maybe a comment about the watchlist)
  2. How about "Tip of the month"? Maybe derived from discussion here - so newbies and naming policy might be an idea?
--Herby talk thyme 18:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
A tip system would be nice, but I think we should have more tips then just one per month. We would probably do better with a tip of the day, or something like that. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I just appended a link to the bulletin board to the bottom of the welcome template. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
OK with a more frequent tip - would be nice if someone could design something eye catching? --Herby talk thyme 20:13, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Couple more suggestions
  1. How about putting the bulletin board on the sidebar in the "Community" section. Might help to raise its profile?
  2. Maybe start a Wikibooks:Bulletin board/Tips & tricks page so that we can contribute any ideas we have to this?
--Herby talk thyme 13:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changing the Sidebar

I would like to propose a few changes to the sidebar:

  1. Remove Wikistudy and Wikiprofessional, because neither of these are particularly popular, and don't necessarily warrant links on the sidebar.
  2. Change "Books by subject" to "All Bookshelves", or simply "Bookshelves".
  3. Change "Books near completion" to "Featured Books"
  4. Add a link to the bulletin board to the "Community" section.
  5. Remove the link "Catalogue" from the "Tools" section. The card catelog office simply isn't maintained, and it is linked to from the community portal.

What do people think about these changes? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 13:36, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Fully agree with this suggestion --Herby talk thyme 13:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe in addition to the above changes that:
  1. Remove the "books alphabetically" link, also not maintained.
  2. Community should be combined with the Navigation sidebar.
  3. Tools should be combined with the Toolbox sidebar.
This means that combined with the above changes we could have something like:
Navigation
  • main page
  • help
  • bulletin board
  • staff lounge
  • community portal
  • wikijunior
  • bookshelves
  • featured books
  • donations
Toolbox
  • recent changes
  • what links here
  • related changes
  • module cleanup
  • user contributions
  • email this user
  • printable version
  • upload file
  • special pages
What do people think of these additional changes? --darkYin yang.svglama 14:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Sounds fine to me. Have to admit that I didn't know half of the things like Wikijunior were even on the sidebar. Xania 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Happy with it but wouldn't mind the word community in the bar (if we are trying to build it?) --Herby talk thyme 13:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
what do you mean? Like "Community Navigation" instead of Navigation? --darkYin yang.svglama 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
One of the problems with WB and attracting people here is that it's hard to define exactly what should be in this project. Cookbook recipes are a fine examples of things which are popular and part of this project so maybe we should link to the Cookbook from the sidebar? It's just a thought but what do y'all think? It's certainly busier than 'Wikistudy' or 'Wikiprofessional'. Xania 21:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Refactoring

I feel that my previous question (up the page), "Obsolete naming schemes," is totally unnecessary now, as it was answered extemporaneously and sets no major or minor precedent. Is it therefore appropriate to refactor it out? I hardly doubt that it would matter...but I checked, and the proposed talk page guideline was rejected with the note on the talk page that "we all have the gist of this one. It doesnt need to be an actual policy." Anyways, since it was a question totally unrelated to any now- or previously-existing article, policy, image, etc., I was intending to refactor it out. Comments? Cheers, Iamunknown 08:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linux_Guide/PlayStation_3

Anyone know why this page has a funny image in the centre/top? I can't see the image in the source... Xania 19:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont see an image there. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 21:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Yeah it's gone. I notice the reference list on that page is from a template {{reflist}} and so I imagine that whatever was changed in the template has since been changed back. I think there was a vandal at work earlier but Derbeth or someone has reverted all the changes now. Thanks. Xania 22:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Collaboration_of_the_Month/January_2006_voting

Has someone pulled up an old archive for this or what? Almost all of the votes are from December 2005 apart from a few new comments from this month. Is there are vote for collaboration of the month for December 2006? Xania 12:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorted the Jan one and protected the page for 2006. AFAIK BOTM & COTM are suspended for other community activities --Herby talk thyme 12:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted the voting for january (the current voting), because both the BOTM and COTM are going to be suspended for 1 month. We will start a new round of voting in January, and likely have BOTM and COTM winners again in Februrary. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] That was one heck of an editing session

*Passes out from exhaustion after re-organizing the east coast swing book*

Has anyone here done some book editing "marathons"? Worked on writing or formatting a book for a super-prolonged period of time? Spent an hour changing links? Wrote three chapters at once?

Wow. That was one heavy editing...thing. *has wikixhaustion*

--Monktalk 00:07, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Been there. Over the summer I had days as a researcher where there was literally nothing to do, but I had to be on campus for 8 hours anyway. It didnt happen often, but I spent a few 6 hours days on Wiki. It's fun, but you can't do that kind of stuff all the time. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:10, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redesigning top of Main Page?

Hi all,

I propose we redesign the top of the main page. You can see my proposed changes at Template_talk:Main_Page_introduction#Redesign. What do you think? Cheers, Unforgettableid 01:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Unforgettableid. I took a look at this design, and I have to admit that I dont particularly like it. I most don't like that you pointed all those links to wikipedia, when some of them should have pointed to local pages (Wikibooks:About, for instance). The design isn't bad, but it also isnt much different from the current version. Also, I think I like the current wording better. Sorry! --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 01:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree with Whitenight. We don't want the first links on our site to be to another orginization, who's content we have no control over. If we Wikibooks users don't like our About page, we can simply change it. If we don't like the Wikipedia article about Wikibooks, we'd have to work with the Wikipedia community to make changes, and there's no guarantee that it would end up exactly correct. Additionally, our "about" page can be directed to new users, encouraging them to participate, while Wikipedia's article on us would contain lots of information, but wouldn't take an opinion on whether someone should be involved or not as that would violate their NPOV policy. I also like the wording the way it is better than the proposed verbage. Nice try, keep thinking of ways to help improve Wikibooks. Gentgeen 01:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to view/understand Edits (NOT in history)

Hi, I recently made a change to "How to start a Wiki." It was under the Pick a License section (Wiki_Science:How_to_start_a_Wiki#Things_to_do_immediately_after_starting_a_wiki): the issue is that for a newbie (the intended audience), a guide telling him/her to simply pick a license is not really helpful. Where do you find said licenses, what are their main differences, when, at what step do you pick such a license, are these included in wiki software? A small clarification/guidance would be very helpful.

The changes I had made are no longer visible, but why is this not in the page history? Is there a better area to address this then in that very section?

69.159.234.158 15:26, 8 December 2006 (UTC), James

Is this your edit? --Swift 19:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I tried to clarify that section. Better? Alas, the web site that had my favorite comparison is now offline. :-( --DavidCary 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is fine. Nice work. --Swift 23:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that was helpful. On a sidenote, how is it that the removal of the text (line 160) that was last modified on that page at 22:27, 7 December 2006, does not appear in the history when looking at the following edit at 08:31, 8 December 2006? Am I missing something?
69.159.234.158 21:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC), James

[edit] Orphaned fair use images

I have come across a couple of orphaned fair use images. Wikibooks, as far as I know, does not have a template like {{w:Template:Orphaned fairuse not replaced}}. Is there a need for one? Or should I just report orphaned fair use images to an admin and let he or she delete them? I rather like the latter option, because it seems to be instruction creep to create new templates immediately when small problems arise. Cheers, Iamunknown 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Question answered on IRC: tag them for speedy deletion. --Iamunknown 23:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] general category tipes and guidelines

Are there any general category tips and guidelines? If not, would Category talk:Main page or Wikibooks_talk:Naming_conventions#category_guidelines (or somewhere else) be the best place to list tips? --DavidCary 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Category:Main page links to w:Wikibooks:Categorization but there is also a Help:Category but it is an out of date previously updated from meta:. I'd say the latter were the place to list category guidelines. --Swift 22:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Afrikaans

I may need help to add more information about the language of Afrikaans, also asking anyone to take a look at this and also make sure it's cleaned up properly... Rakuten06 21:01, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image deletion runs

I realise that the image deletion tidy up is essential. However, done by a user, it effectively wipes out most of my ability to RC patrol first thing. Would anyone just check thro the RC stuff before and maybe after running the deletions as I guess we are probably missing things. I can do New Pages easily enough still. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that it uses an admin tool, and we don't have any bots with sysop status. The bot part of the job is nearly done :). --SB_Johnny | talk 13:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah but I'm just saying if someone reviews RC before it runs it will catch stuff I'm not getting to (indeed someone may be doing it - I can't see it cos 500 changes only take me back to deletions maybe 2/3 hours back) --Herby talk thyme 13:50, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
In hind sight, we could have created such an account (an admin account with the bot flag), and shared the password among our active admins to use as necessary. After the job was done, we could have put in a request with the stewards to remove all the privledges from that account. Or, conversely, we could have given the bot flag to on of our current admins, and then removed it when the job was done. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_26"