Wikibooks:Staff lounge/Archive 28

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] COTM: rethought, reconfigured, and resurrected

The collaboration of the month is a very good idea, but has never lived up to its ideals. If I understand correctly, the original idea was to have a "good book needing work" be a "community project". That's never worked, of course, because wikibooks just isn't that kind of community: our community (for the most part) is a group of people who love writing about what we (individually) are passionate about, as opposed to a community that wants to build a website called "English Wikibooks". We're a bunch of considerate, polite, respectful people who take care not to go messing around in books we're not familiar with. We hang out together and respect and encourage one another's work, but our "community" is one of people working side-by-side, rather than a community oriented towards achieving a particular goal.

I'd like to suggest that we reincarnate the COTM as a project that reaches out to our sister projects. Rather than just having the COTM a "token honorary position" here on wikibooks, we could instead make it a project for our community leaders and ambassadors to take on, and try to get interest from our sister projects. From Wikipedia we might be able to find some knowledgeable (or at least enthusiastic) contributors by posting on the village pump and relevant wikiprojects. From Wikiversity we could get people interested in teaching or learning the materials addressed by the book (and perhaps a project there to discuss the book). From Commons we could find illustrators, and perhaps inspire some photographers.

I, and perhaps some others (where's Gentgeen these days, anyway?) are "known elements" on these other projects, and could smooth the way towards making this a "monthly cross-project tradition". But to make this work we'd need to make a little change: we need to get rid of the "minimum wikibooks edits" requred on those votes, so we could allow established users on other projects to help us choose. We have a very bad reputation (which IMO is well deserved) for being an "overly closed" (if not xenophobic) community, and if this is going to work, we're going to need to be open to voices from other projects. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I've made my arguments against the COTM, and I think that even if we open it up in the way that you are talking about, they will be doomed to fail. Unfortunately for us, regardless of what decisions we make on this matter, we are going to be doomed to learn some lessons the hard way. I don't think that allowing Wikipedians to vote, and sending out "ambassadors" to wikipedia and wikiversity are going to revitalize this initiative. We can certainly try though. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 00:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
To revisit this issue, and prevent it from being driven out of sight and mind entirely, If we want to rework the COTM project to be something better, I'll agree to it contingent to a few conditions:
  1. that we plan how specifically to increase it's popularity (and therefore try to correct the problems we've had in the past)
  2. That we set a moritorium on it, in case the new provisions do not correct the problems.
The problem that COTM has had is that it simply doesnt attract contributors. If we can't fix this problem, we should abandon it and find something else that does work. A better use of our time all together would be to work to formalize a "wikipress" initiative, where we take the books that are attracting contributors, and set them up to be published. I think authors will work harder to write good books if we provide more incentives to good books. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The dismiss button

In case anyone's wondering, the "dismiss" button hides the sitenotice for one month. If you want to "undismiss", go into your cookies, and dismiss the cookie (en.wikibooks.org, name= dismiss sitenotice). --SB_Johnny | talk 11:12, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but what/why anyway? --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hmm? I don't know why the button was added... for one thing it puts the notice off-center :-(. There's supposedly a way to re-set it if the notice is changed so everyone will see it again, but having trouble finding that control. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh OK. To disable dismissals, add one to the number on MediaWiki:Sitenotice id and save. This changes the cookie and undismisses for all users. For details on both the dismiss button and the fundraising sitenotice, see meta:Fundraising sitenotice 2006 Q4. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] IRC conference this evening

From Textbook-l:

I would like to invite you to join a chat about the relationship between the Wikimedia community and the Open Access movement in scientific publishing. This will explore issues of licensing, content sharing, technology, and hopefully result in mutual commitments to collaborate.
In a nutshell: December 17, 2006; irc.freenode.net; 21:00 UTC; #openaccess
Please see:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Open_Access_chat
for more (including a link to a web interface for accessing the IRC channel). I would appreciate it if you would add yourself to the "I want to attend!" list on the page, so we have an idea how many people are coming.
Peace & Love,
Erik
DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.

--SB_Johnny | talk 09:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boldness

Boldness according to Wikibooks policy should not be reckless. Take a look at a few actions of User:TeamZissou. I issued a bold challenge to have a discussion about the user's bold delete of the prophecy table appendix on the main page of Christianity on the user's first day on Wikibooks. My entry was deleted from TeamZ's talk page a day later and at the same time TeamZ tried to delete my user page. My user page also inflamed TeamZ because it was actually my sandbox for formatting the prophecy table, unique in that it was chronologically arranged from birth to death of Jesus. By definition, an appendix would not claim to be mainstream Christianity or consider whatever the offense to one reader might be. Parts of the table have stood the test of wikitime (18 months) unbowed, not to say it can not be questioned in a lively fashion. I have made 90% of the entries on the main page because of general lack of interest or timidity. Christianity is worthy of a book, but I never claimed to be perfect, of course, there is a little bias in this army of one. I was proposing a vote on each prophecy on the discussion page if necessary. So, there may be only 55 prophecies, one website has 21 in the Book of Zechariah alone. - Athrash | Talk 21:36, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Boldness certainly isnt the same thing as recklessness. Wikibooks:Decision making does state that compromise must be worked toward in a situation where there are differing opinions. If this user is ignoring your comments, and changing edits without allowing discussion (or even deleting relevant disucssion), that's not acceptable. Also, blanking or causing disruptive edits on another person's user pages is generally not accepted. I'll send this user a message, and try to work towards a conclusion. Please try to refrain from further arguments until we make some headway in this. Thank you. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 22:45, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cookbook

I've added the Cookbook to the sidebar. This was done without consultation so if someone has a problem with this change then please revert it. I was just trying to be bold but I understand if someone has an issue with this. Xania 01:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with it for now. I would like to put a marker down that if we get to a situation where we have a number of really large books all vying for a place on the sidebar, that I would argue that the new link should be replaced by a link to a page detailing all large books. Jguk 15:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of having the Cookbook on the sidebar, although I have a idea. If we had the situation where a lot of books want to be put on the sidebar, we could create another box for them. We could also adopt a voting system to vote for what books go in the box. Just a suggestion. Tannersf 17:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I like having the cookbook there, because the cookbook is so large and it attracts so many contributors. I don't think, however, that any other books should be listed in the side bar by name. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:05, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Indexing spider activity on Wikibooks

I put in a link to a counter page on an independent ISP. The link was in an inoccuous piece of text in the main page of the conscious studies text book and displayed as a full stop. This link was hit 27 times in four days (7 times a day). This probably represents background indexing activity on the site. RobinH 15:42, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Good to know, it can be so hard to get a good read of spiders and bots that come here. 27 times in 4 days (less then 8 times per day) really isn't that much, I wonder if there is more we could do to increase our presence on search sites? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creating new CSS class for text boxes

I'm in the process of appending the CSS identifier class="PrettyTextBox" into a number of text templates, such as {{TextBox}}, {{SideBox}}, and {{LeftBox}}. In this way, people can use custom CSS from their personal monobook.css or common.css pages to manipulate these templates. I am going to add some defaults concerning this class (black text, light grey background, light grey border, etc) to the global monobook.css, but not to any of the other skins, because i'm not familiar with any of those skins. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Nations "donation" to Wikibooks

I'm surprised that this didn't merit any attention on the Staff Lounge, nor have I seen any discussion about this on Textbook-l either, but this is something newsworthy of at least some minor discussion here on Wikibooks.

See http://www.apdip.net/news/wikibooks for some further details.

I know there is some effort to try and do some other clean-up type efforts here on Wikibooks, but this is not a trivial effort and the advertising about Wikibooks alone from an external website is significant enough that perhaps some additional attention should be made to this effort.

More to the point, what do we accomplish with this content now, and do we give it any prominance on the front page? Make this whole "project" of converting the PDF files something of a collaboration of the month project?

Certainly these books deserve to be noticed and placed in the "completed books" rotation that appears on the main page. It is also a legitimate debate to determin if these belong here on Wikibooks or if they ought to be placed in Wikisource. From my understanding, the reason why they are here is because further updating and editing is encouraged, although I would be curious who would be working on it at the moment. Certainly a VfD would bring upon us the strong antagonistic attention of the WMF board of trustees, but I digress at this point. --Rob Horning 03:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

It did warrant posts on both the textbook-l and foundation-l mailing lists, although the initial posts garnered no replies. You are right on a number of points, a partnership with the UN certainly should be utilized to bring some additional interest/prestige to our humble little project, but so far nobody has dont anything about it. As much as I would love for this to be a stepping stone for us, I guess nobody here really knows how to capitalize on it.
What gets done with this content now is anybody's guess. I doubt pretty highly that anybody around here is an expert in any of these fields to the point that they could improve these books (other then basic changes in wording, aesthetics, etc). It always feels to me like there are so many loose ends to tie up around here before we go out to invite the public eye to scrutinize us. Of course, with thinking like that we will never put out a public invitation, because we will always have loose ends to tie down. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 04:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you put some effort into the organizational (and wikification, apparently) aspects of some of these book. Thanks for that effort. I just felt that it needs wider recognition. As for Textbook-l, it seems to be a pretty good conduit of information between the board of trustees and very active (or older aka on this project longer) Wikibooks users, but it doesn't really get out nearly as far to the rank and file Wikibooks users as is necessary for a general announcement.
I'm curious, however. Did these individuals contact Brad and the WMF first before they did their announcement, or was this simply something that merely "happened"? The lack of attention by "ordinary" Wikibooks users seems rather surprising on the whole here. --Rob Horning 16:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Announcements of the donation on the WP Village Pump and the WV Colloquium might garner interest (or might not). "Ordinary Wikibookians" tend to be involved writing in their fields of interest, so it's not surprising (to me at least) that there's been little activity on this... you two (Robert Horning and Whiteknight) are our resident specialists in transcribing these sorts of things. I wonder though if we couldn't find or make a "pdf transcribing bot" to lighten the load? --SB_Johnny | talk 16:37, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I wish we could get more people subscribed and active on the textbook-l, but I dont think it's going to happen. The IRC chatroom has recently experianced a bit of a revitalization, and combined with the new newsletter initiative we have been working on, I think we are keeping more people in the loop about these sorts of things.
As to your other question, the UN people left a message here on wikibooks (I can't remember where it was added, i think it was on the staff lounge) about wanting to donate the books. I responded to the message, uploaded the first few books, welcomed and "trained" the first few UN workers, and they took it from there. I don't think the WMF was aware of the project at all, until Eric Moeller found the UN announcement webpage, and posted a question about it on the textbook-l. I sent him some more information about the project, and he then posted a mention of it on foundation-l (a post that was largely ignored).
What our project needs is more publicity, but it seems people only care about promoting wikipedia, and not any of the other projects. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand your sentiments about the mailing list, Whiteknight, and I have tried reading through the archives in preparation to jump right in to the lists. I am put off by the heated debates I have read through and the (encouraged) lack of anonymity (and whether or not I should worry). I want to join, but I have these and other trivial qualms. --Iamunknown 08:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiprojects

I would like to start creating a more formal set of "Wikiprojects" around here. These wikiprojects would be meta-pages to coordinate groups of people to perform particular tasks. We already have a few wikiprojects (the image tagging project, for instance), but we could use more, and we could use more structure and definition to the whole "wikiproject" idea. I would like to propose a few things:

  1. We either expand Wikibooks:WikiProject to be more informative, or create a new (better named) Wikibooks:Wikiprojects.
  2. Make the above page (whichever is decided upon) become a central hub for all wikiprojects, with links to the projects, short descriptions of existing projects, and discussion/voting to create new projects.
  3. Add a link to the wikiprojects hub page to the sidebar (we can do this latter, when this picks up some steam).
  4. Create a "Wikiproject membership" or "wikiproject community", something like esperanza is at wikipedia (we could give it our own fancy name). that would oversee welcoming new users, and writing/distributing the new wikibooks newsletter.
  5. Create wikiprojects for each bookshelf. Link prominently to the wikiproject from the bookshelf (and vice-versa).

People do tend to be involved with their own books, and I think part of the reason for that is that books are the only well-defined projects that are worth working on around here. If we establish other projects, and get people collaborating, people will feel more involved around here. Also, we could delegate out some common bookkeeping and cleanup tasks to the various wikiprojects, which would help to take some strain off the admins/staff. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you think a graphics lab Wikiproject should be co-ordinated, as it may bridge relationships between Wikibooks and the Commons thought it could also be an unnecessary complication. The Wikiproject could help with the creation of images for books, I have recently been asking help from the user, Commons:User:LadyofHats who has been very co-operative. --Herraotic 00:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree that editors working within specific bookshelves should work together to collaborate and should agree upon a consistent style of formatting. Because it would be inappropriate to use the bookshelf talk page for that, I understand and fully agree that a separate page for centralised coordination and discussion should be created for each bookshelf. I disagree, however, that these should be called "wikiprojects." As has been fleshed out so much lately (and with varying degrees of success), semantics is the issue. Certainly they are projects associated with bookshelves, but what on Earth is a wikiproject? "Well," any metapedian or wikipedian would say, "they are over there [at Wikipedia]! We should just emulate everything they do and we'll be fine." I disagree. I think that we can come up with a more novel, descriptive, and less semantically unclear and muddled name.
I also question the need for an Esperanza-esque project. Have you been at Wikipedia lately? Have you seen all of the havoc surrounding Esperanza? I consider it a terrible idea. It distracts editors from doing what their name says they do — editing. It also attracts people who are not there to edit, but to socialise. I think if a few editors want to write the newsletter/gazette, then they should just collaborate on the talk page and do it; don't create any hierarchical "wikiproject" that separates the process from the product.
And that is my main issue with hierarchy and wikiprojects being introduced on Wikibooks; that the process is separated from the product. That is, the process and stylisation of creating textbooks is moved from the relevant talk pages to a foreign page; a Wikibooks:WikiProject X page. Why? What is the need? Do you think that anonymous contributors are going to be able to find this or wade through the loose and redundant prose, style guidelines, and then say, "Why, I'm going to do all that!" I don't think so. I think the average anonymous contributor, which we rely so much upon to keep contributing and to hopefully end up joining the project, will want to contribute, not pay heed to hierarchy and foreign-named wikiprojects that are at least two degrees away from the actual content and product. --Iamunknown 09:11, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name change

I created much of a textbook under my current username - exmoron - but am now finding that people don't like the name. I'm wondering if an admin can help me change those edits to a new username. Any help in this regard would be greatly appreciated. --Exmoron 18:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. Your username is now something else, all mention of the username "exmoron" in the page histories has been replaced. Use your new username to login to wikibooks from now on. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Thank you!

[edit] Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks/Unstable and Wikibooks:Decision making/Unstable

Both of these proposals are mature, and I would like to move to make them official. The first, a rewrite of WB:WIW is both more clear and more succinct then the previous version. The second, a rewrite of Wikibooks:Decision making has added sections derived from WB:OWN, which is information that is sorely needed. Also, I have moved to make the decision-making proposal into a {{policy}}, instead of a guideline as it is currently. All comments are appreciated. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 19:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

There has been a lot of comment on WB:WIW recently, all of which has been constructive. I'm also eager to see a new improved version of WB:WIW. Do, however, allow the current discussions to run their proper course. To my mind, there are a number of amendments to be made before it is ready. I'd hope that would happen within a month, but doubt whether it will be much sooner, Jguk 21:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not trying to speed up the process, necessarily. The discussions that had been occuring had reached stagnation, and this is meerly an advertisement to the community that they should come join in. I would be happy if a new version were implemented in January.--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Both of these proposals are mature, and I would like to move to make them official. It appears that you are indeed trying to speed up the process. --Iamunknown 09:13, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Should Wikibooks main page look similar to Wikijunior.

Do you think Wikibooks main page would be easier to navigate if it were similar to Wikijunior or do you think Wikijunior's interface inhibits the main page from containing a lot of information? --Herraotic 22:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess I cannot totally visualise it. Would you consider making a dummy main page in your userspace? That would help. :) Thanks, Iamunknown 08:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Now that the discussion on Meta has gone through the roller mill and a semi-decision has been made on a new logo for Wikibooks, the question I now pose to the Wikibooks community is this:

Do we even want to accept the thing?

We do have the option of simply saying "NO" as a community, even if that would seem a little spiteful. Certainly it is very surprising that over 100 people voted for approval of this logo, yet we are told that we can't get people with checkuser privileges because we don't have enough participants. (the current two we have was with a bit of "ballot stuffing" and letting the vote run much longer than normal for other votes for admins and such)

Even after all of that effort, apparently the color selection (which was done to provide a unifying theme with the Wikimedia Foundation) is apparently "outlawed" for some bizzare reason. There was a major discussion about that, but you know, the whole discussion regarding the Incubator logo is irrelevant in this case. We are pretty much free to do whatever we want here even to keep the current WMF-related color scheme if we wish. If the WMF doesn't want the trademark to the logo I'll set up an independent foundation to trademark it instead... or simply leave it open source. The legal arguments are actually quite weak here to change it.

I will note that The Finnish Wikibooks has already adopted the new logo, so in a sense we as en.wikibooks are going to be left behind if we don't lead on this issue. Since they use the WMF-related color scheme, I would also argue that we might as well use this as preceedent. Of course this is going to have to be done by "community concensus" of some sort.

If there is a final "vote" for approval, it needs to be done here on Wikibooks, with perhaps some announcement on the banner that is currently being used for fundraising. Certainly the selection of the color scheme ought to be done by Wikibookians rather than a bunch of people on meta that have nothing to do with Wikibooks. Of course that is just my $0.02. I could have the logo changed today if necessary, but I'm willing to stop and see what other people think first before anything is done.

And if this seems to be a bit contrarian to some of those who set up the logo policies as listed on Meta, yeah, I'm in a bit of a grumpy mood over this. Certainly the vote on Meta can't be considered "binding" or even gaining a concensus among Wikibooks regulars. --Rob Horning 21:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I've not been aware of all these discussions. I've had a look at what the Finns have done. It does seem more modern than the logo we use here. It's probably better than what we've got now, but I couldn't say I was over the moon about it. Jguk 21:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
The logo vote page... Go make your own iteration, vote, talk about it, or publicize it. Personally, I feel that the current logo detracts from Wikibooks presentation by a large factor. --Remi0o 23:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I'd seen it on Meta and assumed we would get it anyway. That we have some choice is good news (although I'd not a fan of the current one really). I'd floated the thought that it could be used on the next Wikibooks Gazette Wikibooks talk:Wikibooks Gazette - maybe it could be used with a view to seeking a vote? --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm conflicted over this new logo. On one hand, the logo we have currently (while familiar) is low quality and dated. On the other hand, the new logo was essentially designed and voted upon without properly informing or incorporating actual wikibookians (with a few exceptions). I would have never found out about the new logos at all, if i wasnt subscribed to Wikizine, and I dont think many other people here would have ever heard of it if the occasional wikibookian didnt leave a note about it here in the staff lounge. I was under the impression, however, that we didnt have any kind of control over the logo here. How can we make the change ourselves? --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:45, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
We are in complete control, as in those who are regular contributors to Wikibooks and we can set up any (reasonable) policy or vote to try and come up with an approval of this. One thing to keep in mind is that some stake holders do include Wikibooks users on projects other than en.wikibooks, and some of them (not enough IMHO) did participate in the discussions/votes on Meta as well. The real trick is to come up with a "Wikibooks meta" area that can coordinate all of the Wikibooks languages, but at the same time make it so those who only have a casual interest in Wikibooks aren't necessarily going to influence too strongly the decision here.
Simply put, we need to come to a concensus if this is how we want to go or not. And it is important to recognize that this decision, at least for en.wikibooks, has not been resolved yet. I would also argue that if en.wikibooks does not accept this logo, that it will have some long-range implications that may create a minor firestorm on the WMF level, but we shouldn't use that necessarily as a threat. This is something that I think the board of trustees simply aren't even aware of might even be an issue. --Rob Horning 02:17, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Ugh. I saw that page a while ago and was rather surprised I had heard nothing previously about it. I, at a visceral level, want to resist because I was not informed. I do agree, however, that the current image is rather outdated. I personally dislike the new logo, though; I think choosing between the two is as choosing between two evils, as the saying goes. --Iamunknown 08:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm new and saw the new logo. Love it! The current logo might make some think this is only for science texts (looks like an atom). Harriska2 19:13, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't "love" the new logo, but I feel it is better than our current one. I do sympathize with Whiteknight in that the logo wasn't very well published around Wikibooks. There seems to be a kind of "meta--Wikibooks" divide going on. --Dragontamer 21:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
The 'new' logo was decided without the consent of ordinary Wikibooks users. Therefore I can't support it. It's not bad but it needs to be discussed and voted on by users here and not on Wikimedia. Xania Flag of Poland 2.svgtalk 01:11, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't care for the new logo. We can and should do better. Just because it's better than the old one doesn't mean that it's good. --xixtas 02:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks inhibitor.

Over the two months that I have observed Wikibooks I have constantly seen problems that have inhibited its potential growth. The most evident is the lack of appeal of the books. Attention can be aroused if the content is relevant to the audience which most modules here aren’t. This is why I am proposing an effort to cover a generic curriculum of textbooks that can be easily manipulated for individual syllabuses.

I will now state the books for Wikibooks to finish in the coming year at a high quality. These are as follows:

  • Write an introduction of the alphabet (use natural examples to prepare an understanding of science).
  • Write a book explaining the atlas of the world.
  • Write an introduction of numbers.
  • Write a guide of handwriting for children, using the technique of Victorian Modern Cursive.
  • Write a book of basic arithmetic, addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division mentally and using the written method, decimals, fractions, graphs and also a chapter dedicated to memorising the multiplication series to the number twelve and an independent question book.
  • Write books about grammar, punctuation and writing styles. A series of four containing many questions.
  • Write a beginner book about the sciences, biology, chemistry and physics.
  • Write a book about how to touch type.
  • Write a book teaching the basics of instrumental music, piano, violin, viola, cello, etc and of music sheet structure.
  • Write a book about sports, the rules and equipment, football (soccer), rugby, American football, cricket, baseball, etc.
  • Write a book about intermediate mathematics, algebra, indices, etc.
  • Write an intermediate book about describe, argue, explain techniques, media layout and how to compare stories, articles and poems.
  • Write intermediate books about biology, chemistry and physics.
  • Write a book about how computers work without requiring advanced electronics and computer skills.
  • Write a book about how to program using an interpreted programming language.
  • Write an advanced mathematics book. Refer to A-Level mathematics for information.
  • Write a further advanced mathematics book. Refer to early university material and A-Level further mathematics.
  • Write advanced science books.
  • Write an advanced English book.

I appreciate constructive criticism. --Herraotic 23:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikibooks has only volunteer contributors, who, naturally enough, write on subjects they enjoy writing about. These don't necessarily correspond to the books on your list. It would be great to have many of the subjects you outline above covered in proper detail here. My question though is, who is going to write them? Maybe we should advertise for new contributors somewhere. But where? Jguk 08:01, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Creative use of the Import tool and templates like w:Template:Howtobook might help some of these along... certainly the sports books, atlas, and science books. --SB_Johnny | talk 02:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say that there is a pressing need for a substantially complete book that actually meets with some sort of formal curriculum standard. There have been some abortive attempts at doing this in the past.
On the whole, I think most of these book suggestions are very good. I would also like to point out that several of them have been already written on Wikibooks, but trying to find them can be a bit of a struggle. That certainly needs to be something "cleaned up" here on Wikibooks in the near future.
Any help that you can provide in writing books of this nature is certainly appreciated. Unfortunately, most Wikibooks tend to be something that one person writes because they have some sort of personal motivation to get it put together and finished. Sometimes once something has been substantially written there is a tendancy for somebody to flesh out a minor detail here or there, but that takes time. Frankly, I don't see Wikibooks becoming significant (as a publisher of e-books) for a couple more years simply because of the substantial effort it takes merely to get a single book put together. --Rob Horning 17:16, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, it's going to be a couple years. But better later than never... deadlines aren't necessary IMO. Making wikibooks "searchable" is a different story: using categories to create a base structure and <shudder> maybe some redirect/disambiguation pages would help too. Annotating the bookshelves and putting them in larger fonts would also be a huge plus. --SB_Johnny | talk 02:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm a graduate student in engineering, so i have plenty of mathematical and scientific background in many of the subjects you listed above. The question then is why don't I work on those books that you've outline above? It's a question of motivation really, and unfortunately, I am unmotivated to work on books like that (or, more precisely, I am more motivated to work on other types of books). Many people have commented in the past that wikibooks is suffering because it lacks a solid base of "fundamental" books. Unfortunately, recognizing the problem and actually solving the problem are two completely different things. Complicating matters most is the fact that books on these subjects really need to be written to fit a specific curriculum, they can't just be freeform. Selecting one curriculum to follow is too narrow, and writing a different book for each different curriculum is too large a task. I am going to be mostly inactive until after the holidays. However, I would like to talk to you more about getting this kind of project started. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I am trying to write some books and am starting them myself. I can see how it would take at least 1-2 years to write curriculum/texts. Even the big publishing houses take a long time. Here is an article by a textbook editor that brings to light some of the issues: [1]Harriska2 19:10, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment, and I agree with the sentiments of everyone above: it is true that recognizing the problem and solving are in different ballparks. One piece of metadata I consider vital which you missed on some of the texts, however, is scope. For whom are we writing these textbooks? I know that priorities are not shared with all, but I consider this to be essential to developing a quality textbook, and I consider scope to be an imperative concern if we here at Wikibooks are going to be producing textbooks as opposed to wikibooks. For example, if an editor's intent is to write a math or science textbook, I would approve of and encourage the title not to be X, where X is the name of a field of study like Calculus or Psychology, but instead to name it Calculus for High-school students or Introduction to Psychology for Undergraduates. I understand that this encourages forking of textbooks, but I think that this is necessary to provide a clear scope, a writing style, a corpus of assumed knowledge, and a less-than-accurate assessment of the drive of the student.
What I also notice is that some of the textbook modules do not appear as textbooks in development. If at Wikibooks we are attempting to create textbooks that can then later be used, I think that we should abandon front pages — though covers are absolutely necessary for the print and publishable version of the textbooks — for a consolidated table of contents, to-do list, and general development platform; and also that we should write textbooks more as textbooks than as reference texts. I do not think that we should get rid of reference texts; it can be very useful to create a centralised reference module for, say, integration tables, as has been done at Engineering Tables, or of false friends/false cognates as has been done at False Friends of the Slavist. These are very useful and could be immensely helpful when included with print or publishable version of the textbooks. But they are not textbooks themselves; they are reference texts which would be suitable as appendices in textbooks. Similarly, I feel that some wikibooks, including many on the languages bookshelf, are reference texts, not textbooks, though they are masquerading as textbooks. Specifically, what use as textbook material are tables of IPA pronounciations, declensions, verb conjugations, and lists upon lists of vocabulary? I argue that they are of no use as textbooks, though they are as reference texts. And they are necessary to include with textbooks, and should be developed and stay on Wikibooks. A textbook would present material in an accessible manner without inundating the individual with information to the point of incomprehensibility.
In summary, I think that on en.wikibooks.org, we should develop textbooks with a clearly definable scope and audience; I think that we should focus on developing textbooks to be beautifully presented not in their modules, but instead in their printable or publishable versions; I think that we should clearly distinguish between reference texts and textbooks and focus on the latter; and I think we should create textbooks that are accessible to their intended audience. Cheers, Iamunknown 00:14, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm a bit more optimistic... a lot of our books have a lot of potential, but we need more illustration, examples, excersizes, etc. Honestly I think part of the problem is that we don't print them out often enough, to see how they look on paper (and perhaps even compare them to printed textbooks). Commons went over the million file mark a few weeks ago, but that's not nearly enough, and often they're not the ones we want. A botany textbook might have 2-3 images per page, and 400 pages... that's a thousand just for one book! A complete annotation of Leonardo DaVinci would have how many images? Density is definitely a problem, I agree. --SB_Johnny | talk 02:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Iamunknown, I agree that we should define who the textbooks are for - hadn't thought of that. I wonder, however, if some teachers might use texts straight off their laptops/computers to avoid issues with printing. Harriska2 16:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In theory, each textbook should define its audience and scope somewhere. Even more so if we're going to make wikibooks searchable! --SB_Johnny | talk 02:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] creation of a new book question

I'm a graduate student studying for my comprehensive exams, and I'd like to use a wiki to go through problems and solutions with a couple other people in the program. I think creating wikibooks for the subjects of the exam would be a good way to do this. My questions are:

  • Is this an appropriate project for wikibooks (working out problems from old comps and discussing the answes - this could be expanded into an appropriate book, I'm sure)?
  • Would this be better for Wikiversity? It feels like the material would form a series of stand-alone modules or chapters, so I think either format would work.
  • Should I title the books, "Graduate X" or add the information to the "Intermediate X" or even "X" book?

Smmurphy 15:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It sounds more like a textbook than a Wikiversity project, but it's hard to say. For some subjects it might even be good to use both Wikibooks and Wikiversity, depending on how the subject relates to its source materials, etc.
As for the title, a specific title that describes the subject is best, "Intermediate" is better than "Graduate", "Aspect of Topic" even better. What is the topic, by the way? --SB_Johnny | talk 15:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll probably go with "Advanced Macroeconomic Theory" and "Advanced Microeconomic Theory" then. With macro, especially, there are so many different approaches that it is a bit awkward to write something and call it a book (which seems definitive), but it won't be hard to make it clear what (and whose) approach I am using, and to leave things open for someone else to add material from a different approach at a later date. Do these titles sound right? As for using both, it just sounds inelegant, as collaboration becomes difficult if everyone has to check two pages for updates. Smmurphy 17:30, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


I'm typically against the use of qualifiers in book titles. Keep in mind that whatever title you give to your book is the precise string that people are going to need to type into the search box in order to go to your book (without having to look through search results). A book called "Macroeconomic Theory" would do better then "Advanced Macroeconomic Theory". If you want to create one book for both disciplines, you could have, simply, "Economic Theory", or "Economic Analysis". shorter is always better, i think, and you should look for the shortest title that explains your book and isn't already takne. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 18:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Macroeconomics and microeconomics would be the lest ornate titles, but I'd like to make sure that an undergraduate not look at the material and feel overwhelmed while attracting someone interested in it at a higher level. For instance, micro is listed as "high school reading level." Also, both of those projects haven't been edited recently, and I'm nervous jumping into an established book like that, adding a bunch of higher level (and confusing to me at least) material. Would it be better to start a new book, which could be merged with earlier or other projects if they ever intend on becoming "The Great Tome of (Micro/Macro)Economics." I'll go with "Microeconomic Theory" and "Macroeconomic Theory." Does this logic make sense? Smmurphy 19:56, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll probably go with "Advanced Macroeconomic Theory" and "Advanced Microeconomic Theory" then. I am not against the use of qualifiers in titles. I would, however, encourage you to consider, if appropriate, Johnny's suggestion of "Aspect of Topic". If it is inappropriate, and a qualifier more specific than Advanced is also inappropriate, then I would encourage to you stay with Advanced. --Iamunknown 00:18, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ready to Publish -- Chess

The Print version of chess is clearly nearly ready to publish. I say nearly ready because it doesn't have a cover yet, but that could be rectified pretty easily :-p. (also, a couple of minor issues. See below)

This book has taken a step that few other books have taken. It has a ready-to-print PDF avaliable. Compare this to other complete books like Ada. Ada is a very mature and complete book, but without a good PDF (indeed, its PDF looks like it is straight out of a firefox print operation), it is not ready to publish. Also compare it to Lucid Dreaming. Lucid Dreaming is a clearly mature book, with a reasonable PDF file, but the lack of pictures makes it uninviting to readers. Aka, Lucid Dreaming is a work in progress.

To point out why the Chess PDF is ready, it has consistant formatting. Chapters have a distinct nameplate, a complete table-of-contents with page numbers is at the beginning, etc. etc. There are enough images to get every point across. Of course, there are some flaws in the formatting. Take page 76. Full Justified text isn't a good thing here. Nonetheless, this book is a step above the rest. It needs to be recognized, and other books need to strive to be more like it. --Dragontamer 21:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the PDF looks really good. I like the way information on book, its authors and copyrights was presented. I only think that in books which are using images on different licenses (CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, GPL) you should not only give authors but also which licenses apply to which images.
Can you tell us how to create such professional PDF? Perhaps you could submit some hints to Wikibooks:Print versions#PDF versions? --Derbeth talk 22:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I think an excellent way to create a publishable document would to be to use Adobe InDesign or a free and similar program (if one exists). When I used it in my multimedia class, it was absolutely amazing. --Iamunknown 23:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Scribus is striving to be the open source version of InDesign. But it holds no candle to InDesign yet, and is Linux-Only (I think). I personally don't know InDesign very well, but I _do_ know that O'Reilly uses DocBook + custom stylesheet for publishing their books. LaTeX is also popular here and there, and GNU uses texinfo to typeset theirs. So GUI is not the only way here, but probably is the one with the lowest learning curve. --Dragontamer 01:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at w:Scribus. It has native version on Unix, Windows, and Ubunto/Debian linux builds. What I like about it is that it has scripting in Python. That'd be great for me, since that is the one language I can use. Scribus actually looks pretty good. Maybe we at Wikibooks should try it out for our next typesetting task. --Iamunknown 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I've always liked how LaTeX automatically handles the tedious tasks of typesetting, along with its long track record of consistancy, reliability, and... erm... difficulty :-p (it is with the write->compile->debug cycle). But now that I know Scribus is also on Windows makes me want to check it out once again. --Dragontamer 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I was just reading about LaTeX yesterday. I think it's kinda stupid that there are no decent two-pane editors for it like with HTML editors, but nevertheless, it looks really cool. -- Everlong 12:51, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
To be fair, LaTeX is a turing complete programming language, while HTML only describes stuff like bold, italics, etc. etc. LaTeX may need to run 2, 3, or even 4 times before indicies and references are generated correctly, and each run may takes too long for a real-time editor, especially for the large books. So making a two-pane editor with LaTeX seems difficult to say the least. Its default layout is nice, but it doesn't fit a book IMO. Though, you should look at Lyx, a WYSIWYG editor using LaTeX. I'm not sure how it works with LaTeX, but I've seen it reccomended lots of times. --Dragontamer 18:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I know "how" to make a good book; but I lack the skills to do it (never done it before in my life). I don't have any real advanced desktop-publishing program except Scribus, and don't have many fonts to play with. I might be able to pull up a couple of books in LaTeX... but ehh been too lazy to try :-p. But I'll contribute what I know to that page. Didn't even know it existed. --Dragontamer 00:38, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I probably should have included what I was going for here :-p I think that there should be 4 levels of featured books. Well-Developed, Completed, Well-Typeset, and Completed Typesetting. Lucid Dreaming and Chess would go into well-typeset, and books with a front and back cover, index and whatever other arbitrary rules we place down would be "Completed Typesetting" :-p Chess is good, but those issues I raised before along with a couple of others (no index... backgrounds of images aren't 100% white, chapter-header kinda runs into the text, a rule or italics would help here, an couple of orphans and windows around (like top of page 15), and whitespace river on page 76). --Dragontamer 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
A table that would help clarify:
  • Well Developed -- A book that may not be complete, but is ready to read. Readers will still learn a lot from such books.
  • Completed -- A book that is self-standing and is a complete tutorial on its subject. It starts at a logical beginning, ends at a logical conclusion, and covers everything necessary inbetween. These books may have rudimentary pdfs ready to use.
  • Well-Typeset -- A draft of the book's pdf. It is ready to read and can be printed. The print version may not be perfect, but is is pretty good.
  • Completed Typesetting -- Book is done typesetting and is ready to be printed (or is already being printed)
And BTW: Wikijunior Big Cats print version would fall in "completed typesetting" catagory. I knew at least one existed here! --Dragontamer 01:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I like where you are going with this. You seem to be moving towards (tell me off if I'm wrong) open-source textbook publishing, not just creation. Of course, our textbooks never have to be "complete". Either the web edition will be more updated because editors will find errata to fix or will add better captions or what-not, or editors could start an nth-edition. But I like your table. :) --Iamunknown 04:34, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. It is kind of that "next big step" here in Wikibooks. And that should start with recognition of the next step, typesetting. Obviously, it is recognized already as the next step (else, Chess wouldn't be in its nice condition) but to formally recognize typesetting as another level of quality should encourage more books to have good typesetting. --Dragontamer 17:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I think we should strongly consider the forming of a typesetting project for talented individuals to collaborate and receive tasks to compile textbooks. --Herraotic 17:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't. Or more specifically, while I would not agree to creating a centralised page at Wikibooks:WikiProject Typesetting or something of that sort, I do think that talented users should and would, regardless of a hierarchical project page, collaborate and receive tasks to compile textbooks. I think it would be appropriate to create a Wikibooks: page detailing the ultimate goal of a Wikibooks textbook; to be published with professional-quality, aesthetically-pleasing typesetting. From that central hub, which would act only as a description page, as it would not need to be a policy or guideline — there is nothing to enforce, it is only descriptive — those talented individuals who were willing to take tasks could post their names therein. Then, naturally, or so I think, contributors would ask them for help, and they would collaborate. --Iamunknown 01:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Recognition is the first step, and we should start with that. We can iron out those issues as they arise. The main thing I'm worried about is that I may not be able to contact Hagindaz; therefore, to fix those errors in the Chess book, I'm going to have to start from "scratch" (at least he has a good design going on here I could copy). There should be some sort of public repository of the book sources/files where we can collaborate should a member suddenly goes missing. --Dragontamer 03:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
There should be some sort of public repository of the book sources/files That is an excellent idea, Dragontamer. I think if we could get a list of all the pdf files of Wikibooks textbooks (search: 1 2), then we systematically go through them to ask the uploaders (if they are still contactable) to get their files and then upload them either under the Image: namespace or on a separate server.
Also, I think that you will have to start from scratch. See my comments below.
I also agree that we just need to get this off the ground first. No worries about projects. --Iamunknown 04:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately Hagindaz, who created Chess book PDF version, is not active since some time. I wrote a message to him asking to explain us how had he prepared the PDF, but unfortunately he may not answer soon. --Derbeth talk 17:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Did you try emailing him? --Dragontamer 21:16, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Nope. --Derbeth talk 23:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Grrr... no send address :-( No way to contact him ehh? --Dragontamer 03:59, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Nay. I did a Google search of his user name. His contributions stopped in around August–October on all wikis and forums. At de:User talk:Dirk Huenniger (a user talk page), however, he noted Hi! I use OpenOffice to create PDFs. I use a .ott template I created and just copy/paste the content from the print version of the book, then I click on File => Create PDF to generate the PDF file. I can send you the template I use and the English OpenDocument Text (.odt) if you like. Cheers (en:User:Hagindaz) --Hagindaz 19:18, 16. Sep 2006 (CEST). May be of help...maybe not. I tried importing it with OpenOffice 2.0 and it failed.miserably. --Iamunknown 04:40, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
I've uploaded my templates to File:PDF template.ott.pdf and File:PDF template 2.ott.pdf and the Chess file to File:Chess printable version.odt.pdf (remove the pdf extension). See this list for some more books that might be ready. --hagindaz 04:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Where would this go?

Would a book on the beatles go on here? If no, where would it go? Tannersf 03:29, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you intend to write a more detailed biography than is at wikipedia (also look at the eponymous category), then you could start it under whatever title you wish. There is only one other biography on Wikibooks that I know of, the Biography of Nikola Tesla. I think that whether or not biographies are appropriate material to include on wikibooks is gray area which has not yet been fleshed out. You're welcome to create it. You would want to consider between contributing to the wikipedia articles more or creating a new wikibook. I would encourage and support a wikibook. It'd be really great! :) --Iamunknown 04:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
I for one welcome strongly with open arms any attempt to write a legitimate biography here on Wikibooks. It is a very legitimate book, and it can be strongly argued that such a book would be used as a "textbook" in an academic setting as well. It also fits strongly with the idea that Wikibooks can pretty much expand almost any topic on Wikipedia into a full-length textbook.
All this said, I would also suggest that any biographical information that you want to add that is just adding a little point or two ought to be done on Wikipedia first, although there is an excellent article on Wikipedia under the name w:Beatles. Certainly there are some resources that you could use for such a book in that article. It is even reasonable to use that Wikipedia article as the "foundation" for a Wikibook (since the content is available under the GFDL), but it is very important that you should substantially expand any such effort and not make the content merely a fork of the Wikipedia article.
Other general standards of WB:WIW also apply here, including NPOV standards and original research exclusions, but I don't think this is going to be that big of a deal with a book about the Beatles. In other words, yes, please write such a book if you feel inclined but try to keep some high standards when you write something like that. Also keep in mind that a Wikibook is not intended to be a Wikiproject of random articles of related subjects, but something that has some sort of unifying theme behind it. --Rob Horning 12:42, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Would it help unify the book if I created a book on Pink Floyd or the Rolling Stone? They would all be in the same format, and that could spark more and more people writing comprehensive biographies of bands. Is that a good idea? Tannersf 12:55, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
First off, I would encourage you to be bold. If you think that it is a good idea, then please, by all means, do it. I would also, however, encourage you to consider the that biographies sold in bookstores are generally published as individual books. Furthermore, consider that if a Wikibooks biography is small enough that it could be reasonably merged with a separate Wikibooks biography, that it might be inappropriate for Wikibooks, and may be more appropriate for Wikipedia.
While I am not suggesting that my ideas are by any means "hard and fast rules" which everyone will agree with, I encourage you to consider them. Cheers, Iamunknown 06:47, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Updating to a new CAPTCHA

Seems the current w:CAPTCHA is a simple arithmetic test displayed in source as plaintext and easily identifiable. We should at the very least introduce some sort of image in it's place. I assume that there are plenty of MediaWiki extensions with various Turing tests. Comments or insights?

Also; does anyone know whom to contatct about actually getting this implemented on the server? --Swift 08:04, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

It used to be a distorted image CAPTCHA, but last i heard the image server was running slow, and they changed it to the current arithmetic CAPTCHA. You would have to talk to the developers if you want to see it changed. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] about german book

hello, The german pdf link is not working .... please reupload... Thanks in advanced PS: Its downloading with firefox and opera but is 0 MB and not 2.790MB as it should be.

Yup. I'm getting this as well (by the way, for convenience: German). No idea what the matter is. --Swift 06:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Interesting. I don't have a copy, but this is an older copy of the file. If no one objects, I'll do an ol switch-a-roo on that. --Dragontamer 10:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit]  ???

What does (+number) on the watchlist and recent changes mean? Tannersf 12:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Number of characters added or removed on last edit --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks! Tannersf 12:39, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request

Why can't you edit the list of completed books? If you can't edit it, I would request that SA NC Doing Investigations be taken off the list because it has no PDF or print version.Tannersf 11:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out.

PDF/Print Version is not a requirement IIRC for a completed book. --Dragontamer 15:08, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned redirects?

Is there a page where you can see orphaned redirects? I'm sure there's quite a few of them that result from WB:NC pagemoves, and I'm wondering if there's some way we can tell where they are so that we can get rid of them. Do they take up a lot of space? Probably not but every little bit helps, right? Mattb112885 02:26, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Check out Special:BrokenRedirects. The December-1st cache is all taken care of. I wish it would reset, but I don't know how to speed up the process. Happy holidays! Iamunknown 06:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about this - been broken for a while & I dread to think how many we will have to deal with when it comes back --Herby talk thyme 10:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
The cache updates of the special pages is a bit of a mystery, I'm afraid, and nobody seems to know when they will update, or why they update so slowly. sorry. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 16:38, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
I might of solved the mystery. According to Updating the cache a single individual is responsible for updating the cache and its done through the toolserver. --darkYin yang.svglama 16:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks - useful, might explain the fact the the admin activity links hasn't worked for a while too (or am I way off line)? --Herby talk thyme 16:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Yup, it's a toolserver problem (for all the caches). Word around the fire is "any day now", but they've been saying that for weeks. Most of the toolserver seems to be running now though, so hopefully that will happen soon enough. --SB_Johnny | talk 00:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ho hum

Path of the Guardians - opinions sought. A page with the title and the author has now been created 2 or 3 times and been deleted by me. This looks like a work of fiction but "speedy" or VfD? TIA --Herby talk thyme 19:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm fairly new here and still grasping the policies but if it's clearly stated as against Wikibooks policies and guidelines I suggest it be tagged as "speedy", be assured that it seems to me not a valid text as well as the person not attaining a membership adding to the person's mischievous intentions. --Herraotic 21:08, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
So you've deleted it several times, and the author has recreated it several times? In these cases, especially if the author is unresponsive to your questions on the matter, you should delete the page, and then protect it from recreation (create the page with the contents "this page is protected from recreation", or whatever, and then protect it).--Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:47, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
I removed the protection for the talk page. This is unreasonable unless somebody is seriously vandalizing the page, as the talk page gives the opportunity to try and explain why the content is being created or to carry on other discussions. As an administrator, I have often used the talk pages to try and explain why I put in the protection, and these should generally be available even to anon users to want to complain about why admins are going over the top by destroying their stuff.
I don't mind the protection on the main page, and that seems to be very reasonable at least for the reasons you gave. Please just remember that we are all new users once ourselves, and to Assume Good Faith with most people. We need to try and grow this project, and smashing down on obvious new user experiments doesn't help Wikibooks at all. While it is now an established tradition that fiction is not permitted on Wikibooks, it may not appear so obvious to somebody new to here, nor was it obvious when Wikibooks started. --Rob Horning 14:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Openness of Editability

Is everything as editable as it appears? I clicked on the edit box for different wikibooks, and it appeared to give me full control of the article. Is this correct? Are there backup copies made, incase someone maliciously tries to delete the text that others have written? Are there any people who overlook and approve content before it goes public? Perhaps this should be made more clear to people when they click on the "Edit" button. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Virgeh (talk • contribs) 19:30, 27 Dec 2006 (UTC)

Welcome - it is that open! Edit what you like (tho the Sandbox would be a good place to start). If you look at the "history" tab on each page you will find it contains the full page history. You can look at each edit and equally "revert" the page to a previous edit. Therefore nothing gets lost (unless the page is deleted and not too many people can do that!). If you have questions - ask and feel free to edit. Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


(edit conflict) Any person, on most pages, can edit Wikibooks. On some pages, anonymous users (i.e. users who are not signed in) cannot edit them. This is generally in order to prevent vandalism. An example is the main page. On other pages (and these are few), no one except administrators can edit them.
These edits do immediately go live, but there are article histories (to the right of the edit button) with which other users can revert edits. Fortunately, just about every action on Wikibooks is somehow reversible, though it may be tedious. So vandalism can be cleaned up, but it is unfortunately kept in the article history.
I think that your suggestion is a great idea. Right now the edit page does not really prominently tell people what they are doing by editing a page or by creating a page. Thanks for the suggestion. --Iamunknown 19:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the pages that are protected are policy and other pages that are part of the wikibooks project space, not the actual books. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
Virgeh is not alone in being astonished that there are NO stable, reviewed editions of Wikibooks see The need for fixed and verified editions of Wikibooks. We must provide approved versions of core textbooks or fail to be credible to the world at large. RobinH 16:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary administrator access

Hello. I have used temporary administrator access on the English Wikibooks (as a steward) to update the fundraising notice promptly when necessary. If local administrators would like to do this, please lurk in the #wikimedia channel on the freenode network and watch !admin@enbooks (see m:IRC stalkwords). Thanks. —Pathoschild 01:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that... I'd been updating taking cues from other projects, but forgot to "enlist" someone while I was on vacation. If you're looking for administrators here on the IRC channels, we're generally at #wikibooks, not #wikibooks-en. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:34, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Language help wanted

I'm planning a book about Classical Chinese language. But I am not a native speaker of English, could someone here please help me verify my grammar and expressions? Classical Chinese 13:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem! Write what you can, and I'll keep an eye on your book for you to help fix the language and grammar problems. Let me know when you start your book. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:23, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks language portal

The talented vector artist, LadyofHats, has made an image of the text "WikibookS", located at my talk page. Could this be placed at the language portal by an administrator? --Herraotic 14:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the language portal is not controlled by this project anymore, and all changes to the portal should be made at Meta. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:21, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup help needed

Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status has a very large number of images that need to be deleted, but should not be deleted before the links are removed.

At the bottom of each page, under the heading "Links", is a list of pages used by a particular image. These images need to be removed from those pages before they are deleted, to avoid a red "Image:blah" appearing on the pages. Once the links are removed, the image can be deleted by an admin (manually or via bot). If we can get at least a few done per day, we can eventually clear the log on this. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the links to 60+ images and they are ready to be deleted. I know its not alot, but this is my main priority right now. Tannersf 02:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to get a bot to remove all of the links to the images as well? (Forgive me if this is a silly question, I am relatively new here and don't really know how bots work.) Just thinking this would save a lot of manual effort if we could automate this process. --AdRiley 11:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

The links I might be able to take care of with my bot. Actual deletion is another issue as admin rights are required for that and getting an "admin bot" of the ground has proved hard so far. I'm planning some bot running for Sunday I hope so I'll look a little more then --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
I know it sounds repetitive, but I have just removed the links from 55+ images and they are ready to be deleted. Tannersf 00:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Tannersf. I'm shocked by the headway we've made in the past day! --SB_Johnny | talk 00:50, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
All of the images on the first page of Category:Images_with_unknown_copyright_status are ready to be deleted. Tannersf 12:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleting all of the links to images, especially from things like talk pages is a bad idea and should (I'm sorry) probably be reversed. Kellen T 13:46, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

All the images being delinked for deletion have no copyright license on them. This is due to a backlog of almost 3 years of neglect of requiring that images have a proper copyright license on them. We even had a warning that such actions would take place very soon on the site notice before the fundraising began again for over a month. Some admins also took the time to inform users that had a lot of images without a license on there talk page about the issue. I believe all approperiate notice that can be expected to be given has been done. This is simply carring out actions previouslly warned about. --darkYin yang.svglama 14:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
You didn't understand my concern. I support the image removal. What I do not support is the removal of the links to the images, especially when these are on talk pages, as this is essentially rewriting history. Kellen T 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
I understand the concern... it's just some growing pains we need to go through right now. Keeping the images around without copyright info is a bad idea for us, because it opens us (and anyone else who downloads and mocifies our documents) up to legal problems. What we need to keep on top of now is the upload logs, making sure no new images are unlicensed.
The delinking is just a common practice we took from commons. The policy there is to remove links to any image before deleting it (including links from every wikimedia project... the backlog is stunning). --SB_Johnny | talk 14:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Delinking in many contexts makes sense, but does not at all for talk pages where the subject may have been the image itself or template in which the image is used. Kellen T 16:30, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Kinda agree with Kellen in some circumstances. I "saw" one link go that was almost certainly the user's own photo - yes the photo should go, but the link? Of course it is not rewriting history as the history is still there - go back and there will be a redlink to the image surely --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh, I agree... no need to remove them from talk pages. I suspect that was being done to allow the bot to do a clean run, but in those cases we should just manually delete the images if they're only linked on talks. I'd say just leave a not for whomever it was that was doing that, and rollback delinking edits that were on talk pages. --SB_Johnny | talk 16:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

G'day, please don't take this the wrong way, but - don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Ripping images out left, right and centre does not solve the problem, which is image licensing. It can in fact be hard to differentiate such "cleanup" action from simple vandalism. Better would be to look at the image, and work out how to fix it if possible. Fixing could be contacting the original author and asking them to provide license information. It could also be simply recreating anew, as I just had to do for Image:Seasonality3.gif - simple enough with almost any graphical editing tool. Alternatively, please look for a replacement image before ripping out the unlicensed one. Please help to make Wikibooks a richer, not poorer, project. Webaware 02:23, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Further comment: removing links to images without licenses makes the problem worse. It means that when the license problem has been resolved (by licensing, replacement, substitution, or other means), the pages that used to link to the image in question cannot easily be updated to reflect any changes. It should be remembered that the problem is the licensing of the image, not the fact that there are pages linking to it. Please fix the image license, and don't break the pages instead. Webaware 01:57, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
One more thing - please stop. There are images now missing, with no links saying that they're even missing, and for no better reason than that they had no licensing information. I don't have the time to pick over long lists of contribs for users who are removing these images and any links to them, so please desist for now.
At least some of these images are either in existence on Wiki Commons or are easy to recreate (e.g. maths formulas). It would be far better for the project if these images were replaced, substituted, or fixed rather than deleted along with any reference to them. For just a couple of examples, please check out these pages (current, and edit history):
Engineering Acoustics/Piezoelectric Transducers
Swahili
The Engineering Acoustics page has had graphic images of formulas removed. I've recovered a couple as maths formulas, now embedded as templates (see Acoustics/formulas for templates), but others are missing and someone will need to recover them. I found this page by reviewing the contribs of someone performing image cleanup, and checking out the page history. Otherwise, I'm buggered if I know how anyone would know that there were even formulas missing from this page! How many others are like this now? Looks to me like some serious "undoing" needs to be done.
The Swahili page has an image that has been uploaded to Wikibooks without license information. However, the image exists on Wiki Commons with license information. I've requested a speedy delete on the local copy. Simple - no need to break the page. How many others are like this now?
If you need some help converting any formula graphics that you recover, let me know and I'll be happy to help. In the meantime, please stop throwing out images and image links just because they have missing license information. Webaware 13:40, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Since this is for the benefit of the community all bots that are misbehaving even after this requests that raise some very valid points should be blocked ASAP, to preserve the books. Until a solution is found --Panic 01:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

This is a very difficult issue. On one hand, This is the way commons operates, and to a degree I think that we should try to make our own image management policies to be more like that of commons. I'm of the opinion that we should ban all local uploads of images, and force everybody to to upload all images to commons. There is some precedent for this (although I can't remember which projects have done it). I won't push that issue any further, at this point in time. Deleting an image, while leaving links to an image serve as an encouragement for people to simply upload the images again, possibly with no proper copyright information attached. A book is better off having no images, then to rely on images that might infringe on copyright. I think the best thing to do at this point is to reconfigure any deletion bots to leave messages on the corresponding talk pages whenever they remove an image link. Leaving a message would be much better then leaving a red link on a page.
To another point, I dont think that we should be trying to fix all these images. There are literally hundreds of these images (or there were when the process started), and it's absurd to think that any team of volunteers is going to try and find appropriate solutions to every single image copyright problem that we have here. The problem is two-fold: Our administrative predecessors didn't manage the situation appropriately at the beginning of our project, and too many users have uploaded all sorts untagged images. Combine this with the fact that many authors who have uploaded images in the past are no longer active (and some are impossible to contact: I've tried).
In short, I dont see any problem with deleting book links. I think we should leave notes when we do delete such links, but I dont want to make that manditory. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
You seem to be missing the point. Some of these images are in Commons. Deleting the links to the local copies simply because they are tagged as having unknown copyright status means that when the local copies are deleted, there is no easy way to know which pages used to point to them. Leaving the links there allows those pages to pick up the images from Commons when the local copies are deleted. There are now a bunch of images that have no links to them, and I have no way of knowing whether they have been orphans for some time or whether links to them have been removed as part of "image cleanup". As Iamunknown pointed out to me only today, there is in fact a template for tagging such images without causing harm to Wikibooks: {{NowCommons}}.
Also, some of the images being deleted are simple maths formulas, extended character-set characters, and simple shapes. Whoever is deleting these images is apparently not looking to see what they are, and thus that they can be very simply replaced or substituted without breaking the pages linking to them. Breaking pages is bad and should be avoided! This is especially true when the images are maths formulas, as the pages become next to useless without this information.
I don't think I'm suggesting anything radical here, simply that a functioning brain be passed across images before they are deleted, and that links to images are not removed simply because the images have licensing issues. First and foremost, it should be recognised that the image is often not a problem, merely its lack of licensing information. Webaware 03:27, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I will concede one point, and strongly refute the other. If you are absolutely dead-set against deleting the links, I wont argue that point any further. I dont feel strongly enough in either direction to fight it. However, I dont think at this point that any more consideration should be applied in deleting untagged images. If any of the authors would contact us, we have bots that could automatically tag images. Unfortunately, the number of authors who have taken advantage of this is very small. Images with unknown copyright status pose an immediate legal threat to our project, and I doubt highly that wikibooks would be able to survive an infringement lawsuit. The probability of such an occurance might be small, but whatever the odds, I am not going to gamble with the future of this project. I've invested far too much time and energy to help this project to see it get shut down because of lawsuits and other legal nonsense. Compared to the potential legal problems we could get ourselves into, the inconveniences of book authors and readers who don't have images in their books is a minor issue. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That sounds a little extreme. I can't see anyone suing over this, nor the image now replaced by this. A bot would delete these images without a second's thought (and if the links had been removed, there'd be no way to easily fix the page without possessing the knowledge of the original author). A brain easily sees that there is no copyright issue at all, and that a scientific formula in mathematical notation can be easily represented another (better) way in Wikibooks without reducing the value of the project into which you (and others, including me) have invested much time and sweat.
But I guess I shouldn't really care what happens to pages that other people have created here on Wikibooks, when I have my own pages to tend to. Oh, wait, that's the point of wikis. Webaware 03:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Simultaneous Editing Query

I wondered if somebody could tell me what happens if two people try to edit the same page at the same time? Does just whoever saves the page last, overwrite the changes of the other user? Or does something more clever happen? --AdRiley 11:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

You will actually get a message saying that there is a conflict and two boxes (IIRC) one with the new current text in and one with your version. When it does happen it is pretty clear and frankly on this Wiki is not that common - regards --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Exactly as herby said. Two boxes appear, the top box contains the current text of the page, and the bottom box contains the text that you tried to save. When you see such a conflict, you should copy+paste your text from the bottom box into the top box (if it is still needed), and then click "save". --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 02:57, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stubs

Would it be alright if I was to create coverpages for books that are in the requests list but are not yet created? They might include an attractive image, a title, and a more or less completed TOC. --Remi0o 04:17, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

For me I guess it depends how stubby and how long they remain stubby? If not for long fine but otherwise I would suggest using your own user space as a good way of getting stuff started (own sandbox) that way you can get it reasonable before "release" while still asking anyone to take a look if you want to? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you're more than welcome to spiff up any of the Free Direct Instruction books! Free_Direct_Instruction_Curriculum_and_Training or Free_Direct_Instruction_Reading_1 or Free_Direct_Instruction_Science_1 and more Harriska2 16:47, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
The single most important part of a new book is planning. Fancy cover images aside, if the book isn't well-planned, then it will fail (any likely be deleted). If you absolutely would like to start creating cover images, I would suggest:
  1. Create cover images for books that already exist
  2. Take some time to plan (i will help if you like) your books, and then create a good TOC and cover image, etc.
Help is always appreciated, but please ensure that the things you contribute dont get ignored or deleted. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skins

Some people have been having issues with printing out textbooks and certain pieces of information showing up that shouldn't. From a quick look I believe the issue is due to the fact that the stylesheet information to hide that information was in monobook.css rather then in common.css, which meant that only people using the default monobook skin were having these things hiden from print versions. I went ahead and moved those styles to the common.css stylesheet so that no mater what skin is being used it will work, unless someone overrides it in their own skin. I did the same for a few other styles that seemed to be intended for everyone and not just monobook skin users. --darkYin yang.svglama 17:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Darklama - I've got a monobook.css file I created but it only works when I'm logged in. If I were to create a User:Harriska2/common.css file would it then allow all users to see the style settings? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Harriska2 16:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
In short, no. User:Harriska2/common.css, or any other skin file in the "User:Harriska2/..." namespace will only appear to you when you log in. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:02, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Doh! Then how might I be able to get my style added so that others can see it? This style is important to the book as it defines the scripted curriculum. Any ideas are highly welcome! Harriska2 18:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biblical offerings

Not sure what the policy is Isaiah & Jeremiah so far (appear to be complete texts)? End of day for me so I'll leave it to you folk --Herby talk thyme 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Deleted. These are available at Wikisource and have no business here. Random anonymous user dump. -withinfocus 19:47, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urantia United

I'm a novice at this. Could someone please guide me by making the required corrections on my first page so I can follow that example in my future postings. Many thanks. Kkawohl 04:28, 31 December 2006 (UTC)kkawohl

[edit] Addendum to Wikibooks language portal

See original discussion

I researched into how to change the Wikibooks language portal. The live portal at meta is, of course, locked so that only Meta sysops can edit it. We will need to get consensus at the talk page, and then can request help at meta:Meta:requests for help from a sysop or bureaucrat. There is a test page we can edit.

I encourage you all to look at the live Wikipedia portal. I think we will have a much easier time if we follow the established protocol.

  • The .png image "WikipediA" is uploaded to meta. While I don't support converting LadyofHats' "WikibookS" .svg to .png, I think that we should localise the image to meta.
  • The image will need to be included as a normal <img src="" /> tag. The text format to directly access uploaded images from http://upload.wikimedia.org/ is:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/<name of wikimedia project>/thumb/<(arbitrary?) technical text from the link directly below the image>/<#1 filename as you would include it in a module>/<width in pixels (height is scaled)>-<#2 filename as you would include it in a module><if an .svg, the extension you want it in, with a preceding '.'>

In the meantime, I will go the Wikibooks embassies and tell them of our interest in updating the main page. Whiteknight or another active user on the textbook-l mailing list, could you advertise our interest there as well? Thanks. — User:Iamunknown 06:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, strike out that last part. I feel a little uncomfortable advertising this when it hasn't really been planned out. I don't think I should feel uncomfortable. But I do. — User:Iamunknown 07:06, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Unstrike. I'll do it. I'll just emphasize that this has not been thought out particularly carefully, and all their input would be very helpful! — User:Iamunknown 07:10, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand the importance of changing last "s" letter to capital. If you want to change only this, why bother to inform all the languages? I thought we will be discussing something more serious. --Derbeth talk 14:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I bothered to inform all the languages since there was no other process I could find, even after asking a meta admin and reading a ton of talk page archives spanning across different wikis, that would be appropriate. Thanks for your support. User:Iamunknown 20:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

For myself, I'm still not completely sure that moving the portal to Meta from Wikibooks portal was necessarily a good idea. While we have substituted one group of admins with another, the exact community procedure for updating the portal still hasn't been defined. That we have to go through a process like advertising on textbook-l that the portal needs updating, or the much neglected Wikibooks embassy shows that there are problems with this semi-recent change. Don't make me say "see I told you so" about this issue. --Rob Horning 17:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you — kind of. I did all this canvassing precisely because of lack of established process. My major fear is that if canvassing is done too often for minutiae like this proposed change, people might begin to ignore the advertisements like the village began to ignore the boy who cries "wolf." (Yes I know that is a terrible simile.) I think it might be good to have it on meta, but at the same time, it was not good to move it there (apparently) whimsically without any forethought, established convention, or means of communication. — User:Iamunknown 20:03, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
At the time the swtich happened, I was actually voicing some concerns about the change, arguing that the admins here on en.wikibooks were doing a pretty good job of maintaining the page and that there didn't seem to be a compelling rationale to warrent the move to Meta other than "That's how Wikipedia is doing it". Certainly there didn't seem to be any huge objections from the other Wikibooks projects, at least what I was aware of. The page here on en.wikibooks was actively maintained with nearly constant updates including suggestions from some of the other language Wikibooks projects that were rolled into the design. And by hosting the page here, we at least had a strong stake in keeping it maintained, something that the meta admins don't have BTW.
All this said, there are some (very minor) advantages to doing it on Meta, as there are slightly more admins on meta than here and there is a stronger international langauge pool on Meta to deal directly with some of the multi-lingual issues that may come up. The side issue of having a page entirely in HTML instead of Wiki markup language obscured the issue that really had to do with where all this was going to be hosted. I'll also note that the switch occured in spite of objections like mine, and I don't think the issue had been fully vetted before it occured. Switching back now, however, is more an admission that the whole thing was a mistake. --Rob Horning 22:15, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Rob's rant aside (whether the page should have been moved to meta or not isn't really up for discussion, even if it does cause a problem here), I dont necessarily think we should be updating the "Wikibooks" to say "WikibookS". The change is certainly small, but I dont like change for the sake of change. If we are going to go through the trouble of altering the image on the portal, I think we should be aiming for a significant improvement, not just an altered formatting. --Whiteknight (talk) (projects) 03:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_28"