Wikibooks:Staff lounge/Archive 35

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] [dismiss] link

When I first visited Wikibooks a few days ago, I noticed the "dismiss" link at the top of every page. I was afraid to click it because I didn't know how to undo whatever it did. I tried using Wikibooks "help" and even Google but couldn't find an explanation.

Finally, I clicked the link on the top of some page I didn't expect to visit again (in case I was dismissing the page from visibility to me or otherwise making the page unusable to me), and all that seemed to happen was that the "dismiss" link went away and maybe the page cinched up a bit, and then I didn't see the link on any other pages either.

No harm seems to have been done, but I'm still curious. I'm not only curious about "dismiss" itself, but also what the correct way would have been to search for an explanation of what "dismiss" meant other than writing this message.

My apologies if this was the wrong place to post this question. Also, I hope I'm able to find the answer when it's given. I'm not sure whetther:

  • The reply will be added to this page, and I have to remember to come back here (I'll click "Watch this page").
  • Or if it will be posted to this page and I'll receive an email letting me know to look.
  • Or if it will be posted to one of my pages and I'll get an email about it.
  • Or if I'll just get an email about it.

Sorry if the answers to these questions seem obvious from other information I've read, but since I'm posting for the first time to this particular page, I'm still not clear about how the reply will work. --Lindsay 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Lindsay! The "dismiss" button makes the sitenotice disappear. The sitenotice is what appears at the top of this page (today it's announcing that registration for Wikimania 2007 is open, and Wikimania is a large workshop where people get together and discuss all things wiki). Dismissing it means that you won't see that message again until someone resets the message's id number. You can always see (but not edit) the sitenotice by going to MediaWiki:Sitenotice. You can also add it to your watchlist if you want to monitor changes... we generally dont reset (as in override your dismissal) unless it's something urgent.
The reply will be added to this page (well, here it is, actually). I'll bump you a message on your talk as well so you can see how that works too.--SB_Johnny | talk 14:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, SB_Johnny. I remember that Wikimania notice. It wasn't a problem. Will the notice come back by itself eventually, or is there a way to re-enable it in case some future sitenotice is more relevant to me?
I just noticed that I forgot to fill in the "Summary" and you did it for me. Thanks.
I was hoping I had set up "my preferences" to receive email when you guys replied. I didn't receive any, even though I checked "Watch this page". I still don't understand how people realize they should check out a certain page for replies. Maybe I didn't set up "my preferences" correctly. More detail on that would be appreciated, if I'm right that there is a way to get email notification on watchlist pages.
Also, I feel bad about you guys having to answer questions that are probably answered already somewhere. If you could tell me how to search for an answer to a question like the "dismiss" link or how people know when they should look at a certain page because something may be relevant to them, I'll be happy to research it myself. For example, how did you guys know that I had updated this page with my questions, or do you just always keep an eye on "Staff lounge"?
--Lindsay 17:53, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, I think i may have been mistaken about the email thing. I know that there is an option to receive emails when somebody edits your personal talk page on meta, but I just looked and can't find that option here. So, I'm sorry for that. As for a place with lots of answers, we do have a help section that you can browse through, but much of that material is incomplete or outdated. You can get a good idea about things from the help pages, but for specifics about things it is always better to ask.
When you add a page to your watchlist by clicking "Watch this page", all the changes to that page will be registered in Special:Watchlist. At the top of your screen there should be a link that says "My Watchlist". When you click on that link, it will show you the most recent changes to the pages on your watchlist. the staff lounge is on my watchlist, so when somebody makes a change, I can see it, and respond quickly.
We don't mind answering questions, and to be honest the kinds of questions that we receive are an indication of the kinds of things that we need to work on. For instance, new users have lots of questions about watchlists, we will do more work to make the help material on watchlists better. If you have questions, it's always fine to ask. When you learn more about this place, you can help answering the questions too, one day. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, my watchlist is the bookmark I use when I check in here, so it's always the first thing I see when I get on the site. It's a good way to enter the project, because you'll be able to see if anyone was editing in your book or on any other page you're watching. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganizing book pages

From previous writing I've done, I know that I may want to radically change the order of topics, the hierarchy levels, and so forth.

If I start a new book, and then layout some initial pages, and later want to make significant changes to the layout of the material, will I be able to do that? This will probably involve not only creating new pages, but also deleting old pages that contain information that's moved somewhere else.

Thanks. --Lindsay 14:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the best way is to just move the page to whatever you want the title to be (use the "move" button at the top of the screen). In general, you shouldn't really have to do that for reorganizing, because as a rule it's better not to name pages as "chapter 1, chapter 2" and so on. Just name them according to the content that's addressed on the page, and then you can shuffle them around by simply re-arranging links on the table of contents.
Deletion involves asking an administrator for help (there's plenty of us around, don't worry!), or just becoming an adminiatrator yourself after you've had some experience. --SB_Johnny | talk 15:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hello Lindsay. When you start writing a new book, I would recommend that you have a table of contents that is the title of your book [[My Book]] for instance. When you create pages in your book, use the form [[My Book/Page]]. I would recommend against creating deeper page hierarchies, such as [[My Book/Chapter/Page]] because it makes re-organizing a book more difficult.
Now, if you have pages set up like this on your table of contents, and you wanted to change the order of the material, it's as easy as changing the order of the links on your TOC. You won't need to move or rename any pages, you just move the links. I'd really like to help you get your new book set up, so let me know what help you need. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey, SB_Johnny & Whitenight. Point taken about the chapter numbers and the flat hierarchy. I see two possible problems:
  • Odd imbalances in the "chapters". For example, one "chapter" might be have a dozen separate topics within a subject area, such as "getting your puppy started". Another "chapter" might be one of those subject areas but containing subject matter that's complex and lengthy enough that it seems to warrant its own page.
  • Not knowing in advance what "chapters" I want, so ending up with occasional major re-org. For example, I might think initially that I want a page/chapter for "getting your puppy started", and then later realize that I really want chapters on "building motivation", "steps to building the retrieve", "water training", and so forth, such that the puppy chapter gets split out into those new chapters and the book no longer needs a puppy chapter.
Maybe I'm worrying too much. With you guys out there to help me, maybe the best thing is to fly seat-of-the-pants at first, get the book started and add some material, and then, when I become unhappy with the organization, get help from you. . . unless you think it would be a bad idea to go about it that way. --Lindsay 17:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
You are worrying too much! Writing a wikibook is supposed to be fun and relaxing. I definitely suggest that you write out an outline first, so you can try to map out all the information that you want to include, and the amount of work you want to devote to each different topic. Re-organizing a book is also not a big deal either, it is trivial to add new pages, delete old pages, rename pages, refactor, etc. I will say that it is slightly easier to create a page then to delete a page, but the difference for you is negligible. Here is what I suggest, in a nutshell:
  1. Write out an outline of your material, probably on your user page, or on a subpage of your user page.
  2. Start to fill in the outline with text. Your "book" is going to essentially be 1 large page.
  3. As your start to find logical "Breakpoints" in your text, create the necessary subpages. Copy+paste text from your outline to the new subpages.
  4. When you are done, make sure you link all your new subpages to your TOC.
This is the way that many books are written, and it helps you stay organized up till the point where you need to start creating subpages. I have much more to say about creating new books so if you still need some help let me know. Otherwise, take these tips and run with them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I like your suggestions for getting started. I thought I was supposed to create the book in some collaborative area, but it will be more comfortable to put my intial work on a subpage of my user page. If you have other thoughts to share at this time, I'd love to hear them. Another idea might be to wait to see my fledgling attempt and then jump in. I'll get to it as soon as I have some time. How should I notify you (or someone) when I'm ready for some feedback, just a new message on this page? --Lindsay 19:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Yup, this is a pretty good page for that (in fact, that's what this page is for!) :). And remember, even if you start something in your userspace, you can always move it to the main namespace later. --SB_Johnny | talk 21:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lost Edits

I'm sure I've seen information about this somewhere, but I can't find it.

Several times, I've edited one of my pages. Then when I navigated back to it some time later, all the changes were gone.

Am I supposed to do something more than click "Save page"? --Lindsay 15:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In a word "no" - save should be all that is needed. Could you let us have more information on what you think is missing? (the page etc) Equally if you look at the "history" tab of any page it will show you who has edited it and you can compare versions - hope this helps - cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:32, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I made extensive changes to User:Lindsay_Ridgeway/Reward-based_Field_Training_for_Retrievers, especially the article "De-cheating". --Lindsay 16:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the history [1] I can see that you have added material and no one else has edited the page so ...... Either a glitch (it does happen) or a user/keyboard interface issue <g>. Shout tho if we can help and it keeps happening - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:12, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
When this happens to me it's usually that I hit "preview", read through the article, and then clicked a link out to work on the next thing and forgot that I hadn't actually saved. --xixtas talk 18:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Right, I've made that mistake myself many times. "Show Preview" and "Show Changes", while they look the same are are close to the save button, don't do the correct thing. If I had a dollar for every time... --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit]

I find it confusing that the Wikibooks logo (upper left corner of every page) spells it "Wiki Books". A silly quibble, I know, but when you've worked with computers for forty years, these things jump out at you. Just thought I'd put it in the hopper. --Lindsay 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

We;ve been trying to change that logo for some time now, but there is always some kind of bureaucratic red-tape for us to deal with. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Restarting a numbered list

The markup guidelines say you can mix various kinds of lists, such as those starting with "#" and those starting with "*".

I tried that and when I went back to the next line starting with "#", it started numbering with "1" again.

Any way to get it to pick up where it left off? --Lindsay 20:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Now that is a tricky question, and one for which there isn't a good answer available anywhere. Numbered lists can be continued so long as they are never discontinued. In other words, you can't change list types in mid-list, but you can nest one list inside of another. For example, if we wanted to write numbers-bullets-numbers, we would write something like this:
#A
#B
#*B1
#*B2
#C
Which will look like this:
  1. A
  2. B
    • B1
    • B2
  3. C
I hope that helps you. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 20:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Perfect! Thanks. --Lindsay 21:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New book on .NET Framework 3.0

Hi! I am Ravichandar and have been quite active with Wikibooks for quite sometime. I've started a book on .NET Framework 3.0 and am looking for people who would help me verify the content and provide information. -Ravichandar84 05:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey All

I'm not long active on the wiki's, and have just created a book called fractals. I've just finished an image I'm wanting to put in the book but have no idea how to upload it... Can anyone help?

I think your image should be uploaded to Commons since it is your own work. You'll have to register an account there to do that, but we encourage all images to be uploaded there unless Commons licensing rules won't allow it (which isn't the case here). They have a very easy upload procedure. In their "Participate" box, there is a link "Upload file" that will take you to the upload page. The instructions there are fairly straightforward, but there's plenty of people at Commons who can help you if you get stuck. Good luck! – Mike.lifeguard | talk 13:55, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Retriever book outline ready for comments

I've put together the beginnings of a book on my userpage and would welcome comments on format, structure, naming conventions, etc. before I go much further:

 Reward-based Field Training for Retrievers

Thanks! --Lindsay 13:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've read through the book so far, and it looks great. There is always more work to be done in any book, but you have a good structure, some good examples of formatting and technique (so other authors can follow along), and some good notes posted. Whenever you are ready to officially create this book, let me know and I can help you out. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm glad I'm not too far off track on the structure, format, etc. I'm not sure what you mean by "officially create", but I'm guessing you mean start making it available to the public. What would be the criteria for doing that? My instincts would be to wait until I've filled in as many of the placeholders as possible with content, to the extent I can contribute some content. I'm also thinking I'd have a couple of people I know well read it over for reasonableness before I make it available to strangers. Is that what you'd do? --Lindsay 05:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
When I saw "officially create", I mean that you need to move the book out of your personal userspace, and also list your new book on an appropriate bookshelf, etc. So long as the book is in your personal userspace, it really isn't subjected to most of our site's policies, and it really isn't easily available (conceptually, at least) to the public for reading and editing. If you have the structure of the book ready, you should move it out of your user space so more people can get their eyes and their hands on it. I can do all the work for you, if you are confused about the process. Just let me know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchy

I'm sure this is an old question about all Wikis, but I'd like to ask it specifically with regard to the book I've started.

First, I should mention that there is no consensus on the "right" way to train a dog, including the "right" way to train a retriever for field competition. Should you reinforce puppy retrieves with food? Should your dog participate in other sports? At what age should you begin training various skills? And of course, what's the best way to train a particular skill?

The advantage of a collaborative effort is that you can merge the information from many minds. But what happens when that "information" is in conflict? For example, author A writes "Begin training the puppy to retrieve at 7 weeks." Then author B edits that page and writes, "Retrieval training should not begin until the puppy is at least eight months old." Both of those authors go on to other things and never work on the page again.

Because author B came last, the page ends up with his opinion for all who follow to read. But if author A had come last, the page would have ended up with his opinion. It doesn't seem a good thing that the book's final content should be determined by such an accident of timing.

Before I notify other trainers that my book is open for collaboration, I'd be interested to know how this kind of issue has been resolved in the past.

Also, I'd like to know if there's any way I can arrange for people to be able add content, even add differences of opinions, but not remove material that I believe to be correct.

Thanks! --Lindsay 17:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The good news is this is a wiki - the bad news is this is a wiki. Folks can add to their hearts content, however they can also remove, disagree and explain that the moon is really pink. There have been discussions about "approved" versions of things but - who will approve them? It is good to have your contribution Lindsay but even if you were the world authority (sorry you are...) then someone would not see it your way. Wikis are co-operative, wikis are odd! Final content is another issue - I doubt in this context there will ever be final content (& that is one of the problems with "approval"). Now - as this is a wiki - folk may come along and disagree with me <g> --Herby talk thyme 17:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Compromise is the only way really to resolve conflict. To use your example, a compromised example could be "Retrieval training should begin no earlier then 7 weeks and no later then 8 months" or "Some trainers believe retrieval training should begin at 7 weeks, while other trainers believe training should not begin until at least 8 months old", and so on. --darklama 19:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Or better then that, you could say "Some people believe that training should begin at 7 months because... And some people believe training should not begin until 8 months because....". Of course, if there are lots of different opinions this approach would become very verbose. Of course, you could always list the pros and cons of each in a table!
This hardly answers the larger question, I think, of "Who gets to say what is the final product?" The wiki way, in general is to be bold to make changes or improvements, but to be cautious and polite when a disagreement arises. Author A writes his piece, Author B replaces it with his. This is when discussion arises, and the two authors must reach a compromise before they can continue further. In many cases, you could even appeal to the community and ask for ideas.
As the author of the book, you could really lay out a few specifics before-hand, such as "the general philosophy of this book is..." but i would caution against making these kinds of rules too specific because you could alienate potential readers and writers. Anyway, if you need help with a specific issue, you can always ask us. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
All of this depends on trust. As you suggested, my preference would be "Some trainers believe the answer is X for the following reasons, while other trainers believe the answer is Y for the following reasons," since I doubt anyone would agree with the compromise position of "Training should begin somewhere between X and Y." I would have no problem if every wikibookian (originator or editor) was courteous enough to either (a) raise the discussion before changing it, or (b) change it such a way as to show that both views exist. My concern is that someone just comes along and changes it.
I think time would exasperate this problem. The more years that pass, the greater the risk that the original work is lost, whether it had validity or not. --Lindsay 00:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
Your concerns are common ones, and I don't mean to ignore them, but I would like to point out that we don't have many problems like those that you mention. The the problems we do have are usually fixed quickly, either by the authors themselves or through intervention from the rest of the community. In general, due to the ease of adding information, it's easier to accumulate multiple sets of parallel information then it is to replace one set with another. Since you seem to be well aware of the issues involved, you could take a pro-active solution and simply try to include all relevant points of view, like in a table or something. This way people won't need to erase or alter your work, because their viewpoints will already be properly covered. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
It's good to know that this kind of problem is not common. Is that true in throughout the Wikipedia universe, or only in Wikibooks?
As for my being aware of the issues, that's only true sometimes. What I am aware of is how strong feelings sometimes seem to run on these controversies. But apparently that doesn't translate into a serious problem. Thanks for all the feedback. --Lindsay 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Archival

I was thinking this afternoon that I'm putting a lot of work into my Wikibook. What if it disappeared one day? That could happen, couldn't it?

Is there someway I can download it to my computer periodically so that all the work doesn't get lost? --Lindsay 01:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that is going to happen, luckily. However, it is a valid concern. If you want to download a page easily, you can use the Special:Export page, but those downloads are limited. You can open the webpage and click "save as" in your browser to save the page, but that would just save the HTML, not the wikitext. You could copy+paste the wikitext into a file on your computer, that is probably the best option.
Another option is that you could download a "dump" of the entire wikibooks database. I download them myself, periodically. If the server were to malfunction, it would be possible to reload the entire site from a database dump. I'll find the link for that later. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like that link. About what size wouldd the database be? Also, any idea what DSL transfer time would be? --Lindsay 04:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Couple of questions

Hey, I've been working on a couple of things now for a wee while and have hit a slight snag... An image I created in high-resolution doesn't display correctly at lower res, it's located here, could anyone enlighten me as to the problem or perhaps how to fix it? I'm at a loss thus far and don't want to resort to resizing the image...

Also, can anyone tell me if I've registered for all the wikimedia sites with this username or just wikibooks?

Cheers,
Thefrettinghand 18:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As to your image, I have no idea why it doesnt render correctly. You might want to try resizing it, even though that can be a pain. As to your username, you have only registered at Wikibooks, not at any of the other wikimedia websites. They are working on a program called "Single User Logon" that will allow your usernames to be shared across all the projects, but they havent released it yet. When that happens, you will be automatically registered on all projects. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] original content

Does wikibooks accept"original content"—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billdakelski (talk • contribs) .

What do you mean by "Original content"? Wikibooks does allow authors to write new books on certain subjects. Is that what you are talking about? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


Wikipedia wants to strike one of my contributions because they say is is "original content" and (although it is professional knowledge, in an oral rather than documented form), because it is not written anywhere to site. So What is the difference if any between Wikipedia and Wikibooks, they appear to be redundant efforts except for perhaps that point (eg. the wikibook on graphic design is for all practical purposes the same content as the wikipedia. Seems like there would be a definition of the site on the main page, but I can not find any.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Billdakelski (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and information there is supposed to be structured in an encyclopedic style. Wikibooks, however, is for textbooks and the information that we have should be presented in an instructional style. Is the content that you contributed instructional? If it is instructional, you can upload it here. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
See w:End_user_retro-engineering -- xixtas talk 03:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a very thin line, I can't think of very many works that are purely informational vs purely instructional most are a combination of both. Do you know of a wiki that is for "original informational research (with incidentally instructional content)"?

[edit] Lincoln-Douglas Debate

New - maybe a copy and paste from en wp, not really a text book? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the formatting is encyclopedia-esque, but the instructional nature of it seems acceptable for a wikibook. I guess we can't require every book to have a "standard" table of contents. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:26, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Oliveros Graviton

And another! Originally two pages that were identical were created, one was blanked and I deleted it (no answer to talk page message tho). Given the user name etc this could just be original research and I can't quite see where it fits? Anyone? --Herby talk thyme 15:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: "welcome" message

Post a "welcome" message -- We can start a discussion with the community and figure out who can do what. (Whiteknight)

Not sure how helpful I can be, but willing to give it a "fly." My strength are in the following subject areas: law materials; English language; soft martial arts; mysticism (Taoism to western tradition not fortune telling etc,); relgions; history -- American Civil War and World War II; Jung. While I have a good general knowledge of many topics, I have a law library background which is LC based usually to fit into university systems which tend to be LC based. However, law materials must deal with the limits of the catch as catch can LC system as a haphazard tool compared to the internal organization of the Dewey sytem. Stated from another view point: LC works well with treatises but not 80% of the materials in law libraries. I have good organizational skills and enjoy problem solving within my competencies.

My weaknesses: book centered and unsophisticated with on line conventions, soft ware, etc. Very opinionated but willing to consider opposing ideas.

However, if given narrow tasks with simple conventions -- I may prove useful. Next move is up to Alice in this world of magic chessboards. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by M3lo (talk • contribs) .

Well, if your weaknesses involve dealing with books, or putting up with unsophisticated software conventions, then you might just be in hell! Either way, I'm glad you posted a message here, and I am exceptionally happy for any help that we can get around here.
One of the biggest priorities for us right now has been to categorize books according to 4 systems: the Dewey Decimal System, the Library of Congress System, Alphabetically, and by Bookshelves. The first three systems you are likely to be very familiar with, but the fourth is an idiosyncratic system that has arisen here according to our needs and whims over the years. Bookshelves break up books according to subject, but because of our lop-sided collection of books (favoring the sciences and computers) the bookshelves themselves are not always divided up in the most logical ways. For instance, we have several bookshelves relating to computers, where in regular libraries there would be a single section devoted to all these books.
Anyway, I could go on and on about things that we need, but I encourage you to take a look around and see for yourself what you think some of our organizational strengths and weaknesses are. If you have any questions/comments/suggestions/insults just post them here and we can talk about them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, all!

Greetings from Drieux!

Just a quick 'hello' from a simple country mathematician {grin}. I'm looking forward to helping out here, with my favorite topics, and learning about others that just pop up. Other than the day job, I have some expertise in making and using SCA weapons and armor, and have been honored to have been taught he fundamentals of kenjutsu. As might be expected, I'm a semi-fanatic chess player.

There are lots of other areas of fascination to me, but this CV has bored you enough, I'm sure. I hope we all have a safe day, and learn lots of nifty stuff!

Best regards,

Drieux 15:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Drieux, welcome to WB; it sounds like you have many and varied interests, so feel free to contribute wherever you feel most comfortable, and ask any of us if you need any help. Also remember to look at this page to see if what you want to contribute is in line with the goals of the project. Thank you for your intro! Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New book on educational psychology?

I'm thinking of creating a textbook about educational psychology, intended for new or future teachers. Would this be appropriate for Wikibooks? I notice that there is already a fairly well developed text called "Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education," created by and for university students. There is also a page in the book "Introduction to Psychology" called "Educational Psychology," but it is only a stub at this point. I have read these materials and their related discussions. Now I'm on the look-out for any hidden problems with student-written texts.

Originally I conceived of this as a student project for a course that I teach called "Psychology of Learning," and for which I have traditionally used a commercially published textbook about Educational Psychology (usually the one by Anita Woolfolk). I am wondering now whether to invite participation generally--or whether it will even matter if I do, since possibly the only contributors would be the people required to contribute (i.e. my own students).

The idea in doing this is to solve a couple of the chronic problems of commercial texts, such as excessive content that is not needed by students, and gaps between professional authors' and students' priorities (e.g. professionals are often tempted to provide too much theory, vs. students want lots about classroom management).

Any comments, advice, or cautions would be most welcome! Thanks, Klseifert 21:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe such a book would be very much appropriate here. I would suggest reading Wikibooks:Guidelines for class projects and familiarizing yourself with how books are organized here first, so you can explain it to your students before they start contributing. This way your students can hopefully avoid a common mistake with new class projects of each student working on separate copy of what is intended to be the same book. --darklama 21:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, welcome to Wikibooks! Let me try to itemize my reply:
  1. Yes your book would be welcome here! Even if the topic of educational psychology is mentioned in a page from another book, there is still plenty of room to write an entire in-depth book about the topic. Consider how most science books will discuss some math, but we still need math books!
  2. There have been a number of other classroom related projects. We even have a partial list of previous projects, and some of the books on that list have turned out very nicely. Of course any book written by students is likely to have a slightly lower bar of quality then a book written by Professors, but that doesnt mean these projects cannot be successful in their own right. We also have a number of other books where numerous industry professionals have gotten together to write a book, so there is some hope in attracting other professors or academics to your book. Advertising is key!
  3. As a teacher myself (or, more precisely, a "teaching assistant"), I can attest that many commercial textbooks just don't perfectly fit your classroom needs. The beauty of a Wikibook is that it can be tailor-made for your own class's specifications.
I hope these responses are helpful to you, let me know if you have any other questions. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] addressing state goals and local assessments

Hi, I am looking at the idea of using a collaborative process to create content and assessments related to Illinois k-8 learning standards. I am intrigued by the idea of all Illinois educators being able to share ideas and lesson plans for all state goals. Has anyone been doing this type of thing?

Unless your wanting to write a book on how to create lesson plans, assessments and ways to share ideas for k-8 learning standards in Illinois, this sounds like something within the goals of Wikiversity, rather then Wikibooks. In other words, Wikibooks is more appropriate if you want to write a book to teach these things, while Wikiversity would be more appropriate if you want to do these things. --darklama 11:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I looked at wikiversity and that does look like what I had in mind to get started. I love what California is doing with the open source text books but we are not there yet. Dugganj 16:07, 21 July 2007 (UTC)halejim

[edit] Hi, I am working on a section of a book on poetry analysis

Hi, my name is Hugo Estrada, and I am going to work on a section on the Lit Crit book for poetry. I was going to create a whole book on this subject, but I decided that it probably would be better just to add a chapter on the existing book on literary criticism. --Hugo Estrada 01:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Hugo Estrada. You should feel free to either start a new book or work within the older one. In general, poetry analysis is usually dealt with in a separate class though, so a separate book might work better in the end. Keep us informed of how it's coming! --SB_Johnny | PA! 20:08, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember that nothing is etched in stone here. You can start a new book, and we can merge it with another book later, or split out a large section into a new book as required. -- xixtas talk 20:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contacting Wikibookians?

How do I contact someone who has made contributions to a book? Basically, I want to contact someone who has started a book to which I would like to contribute. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaulWLepp (talk • contribs) .

Usually the best way is to look at the "history" of the main page of the book, and look for the earliest contributor, see if they're still around, and leave them a message on their talk page. (Make sure to sign your comment with four tildes (~~~~), so they'll know how to get back to you!)--SB_Johnny | PA! 20:43, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
If the old authors aren't here anymore, that means that you are the only author, and that you can basically do as you please. If nobody else even bothers to come in and contribute, then there is no reason why you should have to jump through hoops. If you see something that needs to change, change it! If you see something you want to add, be bold and do it! You can save the questions and discussion for when the authors ever do show up again, or whenever new authors join the project. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
It's nice to have collaborators though :). As I said on your talk, please feel free to bounce ideas off me, since ecology is a passion of mine. --SB_Johnny | PA! 21:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the help. What a great community. PaulWLepp 14:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intensive cultivation in egypt

The following comment was moved here from a newly created page, titled Intensive cultivation in egypt.

hello.. i am doing a project on intensive cultivation in egypt.. however, i have not been able to collect relavent information.. i would be obliged if informartion on the topic "intensive cultivation in egypt" is added to the wikipedia wep page.. thank you susie --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 122.167.217.90 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-01T16:29:23.

Many PDF files are bad. Please try to fix them as you have many good books which deserve to be downloaded.

[edit] Bad PDF

Many PDF files are bad. Please try to fix them. 84.235.20.68 17:02, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Which PDF files are you talking about, exactly? What do you mean by "bad"? Do you mean that the files don't load, or that they contain errors, or that they look lousy? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
There are some quality issues with many of the PDF files, so I do agree that some work could be done in this area. Some of them are simply straight copies of HTML copied into PDF format without any other formatting changes at all, while other PDF files are very classy works unto themselves that are glowingly beautiful independent of the content. Right now we are not really making much distinction between these two sort of PDF files, but simply being amazed that a PDF version was even created in the first place for a particular Wikibook.
If you find a particular PDF version that doesn't seem to fit what you think are quality standards, it should be brought up perhaps here on the staff lounge and certainly on the "main" discussion area of the Wikibook in question. If you have time, help us out and fix it, please! This is one of the necessary steps to getting Wikibooks content into the hands of people other than those who are regular participants on this project. --Rob Horning 20:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese Wikibook

Does anyone know what is going on with the Japanese wikibook? Right now it's a huge mess and from what I can tell, none of the users who were 'officially' working on it have made any contributions in the last six months. Personally, I think a majority of it needs to be re-written, re-ordered, and just fixed in general. I'm reluctant to do this because there does seems to have been a core group working on it at one point in time. Going through the general discussion and history pages, looking at the external coordination email group, etc. all work on the big picture seems to have stopped. They seem to have implemented a system and structure, but a) made it very dense/unfriendly and b) stopped part-way through implementing it.

It's a huge project and it needs to be done. But I don't want to just waltz in, change everything around, and then find out the team was working on it all along, just in an undocumented way, and I just screwed the pooch. Nor do I want to alienate anyone by just taking over. I'm also wondering if it would just be easier/simpler to start a whole new wikibook and base some of the chapters on what's already been done. Thoughts? --Sazai 08:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

If no one has edited it in 6 months, they shouldn't mind if someone comes in to make improvements, I say go for it. Its your decision whether to revamp the system or try and finish implementing what they were doing, but if you DO decide to revamp I suggest you plan carefully how you want to do it, lest it ends up being another mess (take it from me, I learned from trying to revamp the Matlab book which isn't perfect now but its better than my first attempt at revamping since I didn't plan what I wanted to do before I messed around with it). If you do decide to do it, good luck! Let us know if you need help with wiki markup or anything like that. Regards. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 11:55, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If I were to revamp it, it would probably just be easier to start over. That's where my initial hesitation comes from, because starting over doesn't really seem like a viable option. The overall focus has degraded into nothing, and I'm unsure if it's possible to really edit it to give it that focus. It'd be easier to start with a blank slate, but it wouldn't be prudent just to wipe out the book entirely due to the useful information that is there and should be preserved, if transformed. Plus I don't think anyone would be happy about that, including myself.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like it should really be two books at least, probably more. Not to mention the horror that it's been nominated to be merged with another book!
I guess what I'm trying to ask is this: Is it possible to start a new book to re-organize the old book, and eventually delete the old book when the new book has done everything that needs to be done with the original book? --Sazai 06:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you should BeboldBooks.svg. If anyone else is working on the book and doesn't like your changes, you are sure to find out quickly. --darklama 13:02, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
whoa nice image, I like it :). 76.192.5.108 13:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links to Wikibooks in Wikipedia

The "Wikibookspar" is a very poor link to Wikibooks, it sits on the right of the page and makes little sense to casual readers. Worse still, it does not contain the URL of the book so does not contribute to google indexing of a book. Perhaps authors could cross reference to Wikibooks by entering both the URL and the Wikibookspar in "Further reading" sections. RobinH 13:58, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding links to Wikibooks in Wikipedia

Wikipedia is one of our best sources for referring readers yet there are woefully few cross links to Wikibooks in Wikipedia. If each Wikibooks editor added at least 3 links in Wikipedia, preferrably to the URL of the Wikibook rather than using the Wikibookspar, then Wikibooks would become far more widely read. RobinH 14:19, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The most frustrating part of this problem is not that wikibookians are not adding enough cross-links, but instead that wikipedians delete those links on sight. I've added many many links to wikibooks on wikipedia, and they are almost always deleted, along with comments such as "this is spam", or "this is not an acceptable source", or something similarly ignorant. If you can find a way to post a link to a wikibook on wikipedia and not have that link get deleted immediately, you come and let us know. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
This would require a change in the external links policy at Wikipedia. Such a change is probably worth fighting for but it would be a fight to get it changed. Interesting discussion on the topic here --xixtas talk 23:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
So long as the link is in "further reading" or a similar section there should not be a problem. Here is an amusing quote from the link you gave above: Wikipedia does not want to link to low quality websites that can be changed on a whim. Should wikipedia's internal "See also" sections be disabled?! RobinH 09:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What happened to the frontpage link that went to a listing of all wikibooks.

That is, the complete listing, on one page, of all wikibook titles. How is removing that link adding functionality to wikibooks, which is already a mess to begin with.

I would like to see that put back on the front page. I don't want to have to search down through a directory. It's much more convenient for me to be able to search for titles with my browser's find function.

Also, why not have the default feature of a wikibook be "one big html" page? There are obvious advantages to this (again, the ability to quickly find material with one's browser's find function). Tdunne 18:06, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The Alphabetically link on the main page shows a complete listing of all wikibook titles, on one page. As for the one big html file, some books provide a printable version in the form of one big html file, but making all wikibooks just one page, is not realistic, there is bandwidth limitations to consider for people trying to view the page and the inability of some web browsers to be able to edit such a large page. --darklama 18:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention that the people who stand to benefit the most from Wikibooks do not have the bandwidth to spare. --Jomegat 20:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that there are now well over 1000 Wikibooks on this project, perhaps as many as 2000. A single page to list all of them is simply reaching the point of absurdity. Especially something so prominent as the "front page" of Wikibooks.
The closest we have to what used to be on the main page of Wikibooks can be found here: Wikibooks:Departments
With as many book as are on this page, it is incredibly incomplete. While there are a few "one page" Wikibooks, surpringly there are many others which are much more substantive. This project has now grown to the point it is quite a bit different from when it was just a few books that all needed help and we were even trying to see if this concept will work at all. By far and away the toughest problem we are facing is trying to provide the tools to allow you to be able to find the content you are interested in reading about, and linking related content to each other.
I don't buy the bandwidth being an issue, as a single Jpeg image file is going to suck up more bandwidth than a listing of each and every Wikibook. Still, on a visual and asthetic level, having so much information slamming into you on the main page just seemed far too overwhelming. It was this appearance and the attitude that we needed to design something not overwhelming to first time visitors to Wikibooks that has influenced the design of the main page. --Rob Horning 21:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
"... wikibooks, which is already a mess to begin with." It's precisely this reason why we got rid of that big, ugly list. That list had to be manually updated, and most book authors didn't even know it existed. The system we have now, at WB:ABC is much better, easier to search through, and is more scalable. If you are looking for books by subject, instead of by title, you could consider looking at Wikibooks:Departments, WB:LOC, or WB:DDC instead.
As for the comment about making a wikibook into a single page HTML document, I think that's a poor idea. Large pages like that increase load on the server, require more bandwidth, and take longer to render in a browser. Some older browsers can't even render pages that are over 32Kb anyway. And beyond the small benefit of being able to use your browser's search capability, it is generally more difficult to find individual pieces of information, and also harder to edit individual sections of gigantic pages. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Whiteknight, having a book as "one big html" file is very useful, not just "a small convenience", as can be witnessed by other sites incorporating that format in their downloadable books (the Linux Documentation Project comes to mind, and countless other random books, some in .pdf format). That you don't recognize that, and yet seem to have so much control of others on this site does not bode well for Wikibooks. As for big books "increasing load on the server", well, that's what this site is for, isn't it? And I don't believe that a book as one big html file would increase load, either. Do you have the metrics you can point to that would back up that assertion? Having one big html file would encourage people to download content and then use it offline, instead of downloading the same page over and over again. And if server load is such an issue, where is the download page for books in compressed format for the casual user? Tdunne 17:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
We balance the needs of users versus the needs of authors. Authors need to have the content broken into sections so it can be effectively edited. People who read the books naturally prefer a single large PDF or HTML file. We try to provide both where books have sufficient content to be considered "ready for public consumption". I think it is instructive that since the front page reorg we are seeing more complaints about PDF versions and composite HTML versions. It looks like we *are* in fact attracting more readers and should try to accommodate them better. Perhaps a new "Good book" qualification should be that it has a current downloadable composite version? Thoughts? --xixtas talk 18:58, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Xixtas, you seem to be the lone voice of reason here. I am a bit confused as to what the great trouble would be concerning authors creating parallel versions of books, one version a sectioned book, and the other "one big html" file. I suppose it is a bit more work, but I can think of half a dozen text editors that would allow me to create parallel versions simultaneously with a simple custom macro. I understand that some authors may not have the technical skill to create a custom macro, or be very familiar at all with creating an online document, that's fine. My point is that it seems that there is a general consensus here among certain current "eminences" that having "one big html" file for users of Wikibooks is a bad idea. Look people, it's not. It's a really good idea, one that would save bandwidth. A lot have sites that offer online texts have already figured this out, and that is why they offer files in various formats, including monolithic texts in compressed pdf and html. Having started this thread, I must say I had no idea that I would run into so much resistance over something so self-evident. It's a practice that has been time-tested to work at other sites.Tdunne 20:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Whiteknight has put more time into making Wikibooks better for end users than you can possibly imagine. I'm sure he does not oppose creating monolithic versions of texts, rather he opposes it being the primary or only version. It is a fact that the Mediawiki software exhibits undesireable behavior when the sections being edited are too large, and in the past large monolithic books have had to be segmented in order to allow them to be edited at all.
You may have a fundamental misunderstanding about what Wikibooks is. We write books here collaboratively using the wiki editing tools provided by the Mediawiki software. These books, in general, were not written by a single author working on his or her home computer and uploaded here. Rather, they are living documents undergoing continuous development. This makes us fundamentally different from the other sites you listed. There isn't any great difficulty in creating a monolithic version of a book, but it *is* an extra step, and it *is* extra work. I certainly haven't done it for every book I've worked on. But I think that it is probably something that we as a community should do more to encourage. --xixtas talk 21:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
(reset) I agree with WK on the point that the listing of wikibooks in one large HTML file had become a very large mess, as have the bookshelves, due to the sheer number of books that we have on the project at this point. With that in mind, there IS a category which all wikibooks have gone into: Category:Alphabetical, problem being that this can only display 200 books at a time. But if someone wanted to make a giant list of all the books from the project, it should be possible to utilize this category, do some copy-pasting, and then change the names of the books into wikilinks. But it would be more difficult to update than the categories, and the more things there are to update, the less up-to-date each system tends to become, because newcomers (and sometimes even people who have been here a while) don't know about this and that categorization scheme that we use. This is why at least at the moment we're focusing on getting more use out of the systems WK mentioned, Alphabetical (WB:ABC), Categorical (by Department), Library of Congress (WB:LOC) and Dewey Decimal (WB:DDC).
As far as the large HTML file for a single book, many books have Print versions available which are exactly that, one large HTML file (with the caveat that in order to edit most of the content you will need to go back to the smaller source pages, since they're included as templates). PDF files are in general difficult to generate with good formatting, and they don't automatically update when the pages are edited (unlike the print versions which do), and therefore they generally should only be made when the book is in a fairly stable, nearly complete state. If a book is complete enough to be featured, it is possible to require the use of a print version, has this been discussed before? Regards. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 23:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
WB:ABC lists all the books from Category:Alphabetical automatically using what little functionality is allowed from the old version of the DPL extension thats installed on Wikibooks. --darklama 23:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
The fundamental misunderstanding here, I think, is that User:Tdunne doesnt quite understand how the writing process works, or how our information is organized. To a new observer, few organizational systems designed to accomodate large amounts of information are intuitive nor self-evident. It's for this reason that we maintain helpful explanations on these topics (although I will admit that many of our help pages are in need of additional improvements).
We do not maintain separate versions of our books, because the work to synchronize multiple versions (especially considering that the wiki-nature of this project allows changes to be made rapidly) is very large and time-consuming. To overcome this hurdle, we do have "Printable Versions", where we use page transclusion to display an entire book as a single HTML page. The problem with this method is that each transcluded page must be loaded and parsed by the server individually, and then loaded recursively into the whole page. This means that to show a single printable version requires the server to make at least 1 file access for each book chapter, in addition to the file access to the original printable verison. This is why when I say that single-page books are a larger drain on server resources, that I don't need to provide any kinds of statistics nor measurements.
Many books also do come with PDF versions, a downloadable single-file version of a book. The problem here, again, is that it requires additional work to synchronize the wiki- version of the book, and the PDF version of the book, and the PDF is typically out of tune with the live version of the book. We are volunteers, and not many people are interested in creating new PDFs, nor updating old PDFs at a rate that would make these versions of the books more viable. In a volunteer community such as this, if you want something special to be done, you are welcome to do it yourself. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:03, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can someone undo this for me please?

22:25, July 5, 2007 Mike.lifeguard (Talk | contribs) uploaded "Image:Netiquette.gif" (Reverted to earlier revision)

I didn't mean to do that. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 22:30, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I looked at the image, it doesnt look like you actually changed anything. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Welcomes

I've just knocked off a few welcomes but there is no consistency at present. I think we should maybe look at using a "welcome" bot? I am not a big fan of the approach BUT no welcome seems to me to be worse. I know a couple of places where they are used and can ask around if the community feel it appropriate? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I know myself, I'd rather wait a while for a human to welcome me than have a bot welcome me, it feels so... like talking to an answering machine. Kind of like in wikipedia you can get depressed because 99% of all messages on your talk page are from this and that bot. I understand this is due to the size of wikipedia, but I don't think wikibooks is yet so large that this has become necessary. Regards. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 13:36, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to see everyone sent the new user info contained in the Welcome to Wikibooks listing. Right now, many new contributors are not welcomed and are never directed to the appropriate info that would help them become contributors. I support using a bot to do this, although a personal welcome should also be encouraged. --xixtas talk 19:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Herby has contacted me and asked me to work on making the WelcomeBot. I would be happy to do so. Please also remember, that the bot runs ever 1 to 2 hours (dependent upon when we decide) and any user can Welcome a person before the WelcomeBot does. So, if you wanted to welcome a user, it's quite easy to beat the bot. :) Cbrown1023 talk 19:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to say, I run a WelcomeBot already on the English Wikiquote (q:en:Special:Contributions/WelcomeBot). I would do something similar here if you believe it is the best idea. Cbrown1023 talk 19:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
As an alternative, for people who want to "beat the bot", I've written a simple JavaScript object that adds a "Welcome!" link after any instance of a link to a missing user talk page, the rationale being that a user with no talk page hasn't been welcomed. It's a bit simplistic, and throws out "Welcome!" links like a politician throwing money before an election, but it allows you to welcome a new user in under 15 seconds. When you click the "Welcome!" link, it opens a new window editing their talk page and pumps in a summary (default: Welcome message) and message (default: {{subst:welcome} ~~~~), and sets checkboxes for the minor edit (default: check) and watch page (default: uncheck).
The script is at User:Webaware/welcomeNewUsers.js. Look at User:Webaware/monobook.js to see how to access it. The defaults can be changed by setting your own properties in your monobook.js. Webaware talk 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
First off, I want to say "awesome" about webaware's javascript offering. That seems genuinely useful, and perhaps i'll integrate that into my own personal javascript.
Most new user accounts are created and never used. Filling these pages with welcome messages that will never be read is worthless. We would do better to only welcome people who have made a minimum number of edits (5 or 10 edits, something small). I am with Mattb above that being welcomed by a human is always better then being welcomed by a bot. When I welcome a new user, I do not use the {{welcome}} template at all: I post a short friendly message, and point the user to the staff lounge or to my personal talk page if they have questions. These kinds of personalized messages, in my experience, produce a much better response.
The current welcome template is large and not particularly useful. I points to several complicated help pages and policy pages that are difficult to understand. Much of the jargon is not explained, nor explained well. I've been working on my own personal welcome template at User:Whiteknight/Welcome, although it's still in need of some work before I deploy it en masse. My template is very short and simple, and instead of pointing the new user to all the policy and help pages, it has links to short, helpful, friendly "summary" pages that describe the basics in easy-to-understand language. The benefit of this approach is that we can rewrite the summary pages to meet the needs of new users without having to completely rewrite all our help and policy pages to be more readable. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
I still prefer personal welcomes any way so the .js is great. However - in passing - I was talking to the bot owner and it can be tuned to welcome after edits (that was a concern of mine too). Maybe on the backburner for now - just a part of me says that admins can do more useful things than "welcome" but as I've done a fair few......! --Herby talk thyme 13:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I suspect that no welcome is better than an automated welcome or a welcome-by-templates. No-welcome is useful, because it leaves the door open for that very first 'You have new messages', with a personal welcome. The personal welcome is quite an important job, because it lets you know that (a) somebody is listening (b) the project knows how to run itself (c) behind the project is an actual community. No robot or template can accomplish this in the same way. It is true that making this scale would be tricky. How do you keep the welcomes personal when all the new users start to blur together after a while? One answer might be that the number of people doing welcomes needs to increase dramatically. For what it's worth, I try to personally welcome active contributors to the Haskell wikibook. Maybe we could encourage a similar practice of welcoming contributors to the specific books that you work on. -- Kowey 05:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC) (who received an old school welcome from Theresa Knott)

If you ignore my recent splurge based on user creation logs, I've been welcoming new users when they show up in RC with a "welcome!" link alongside (indicating no messages on their user talk page). Using this approach, rather than targeting user creation logs, catches users that have made at least one edit. (My recent splurge with the user creation logs was largely about testing my .js script :-)
Regarding template welcomes, perhaps you are right, however there is a certain level of information that should be communicated to a new user upon welcoming them, and remembering to mention each item worth mentioning can be challenging. Perhaps we need to cut back on what's in our welcome template, giving something between what we have now and what Whiteknight has.
Additionally, it's completely possible to mix a welcome template with a personal message - I do it all the time, especially when welcoming someone who needs a prod in the right direction over an edit they've just made. I have some text that I copy / paste for welcoming Cookbook editors (and will work on mixing that into my .js somehow). Webaware talk 09:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I find your script quite handy, by the way, especially since it works with the watchlist (although there are some minor kinks to work out with Enhanced Recent Changes).
Yeah, I agree on the usefulness of templates, and the fact that one can do both a personal welcome and include a template. That said, I think the template should be restricted to the bare minimum (and perhaps point to a central 'Welcome new user' page). The point of keeping the template minimal is so that it does not visually overwhelm the personal welcome. Ideally, the personal part of the welcome should stand out so that it is clear at a glance that it was lovingly hand-made -- Kowey 12:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leaner meaner welcome

Hello Staff lounge/Archive 35, welcome to Wikibooks!

INSERT PERSONAL MESSAGE HERE

And here are the standard tips we give to all new users:

Getting started with wikibooks
  • To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
  • To sign your name (on talk pages), use four tildes, like this: ~~~~
  • Have a look at Wikibooks:Welcome, newcomers for more information.
  • Explore, be bold, and have fun!

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kowey (talk • contribs) .

I like it. I think it needs one more line, however, to shortstop people from adding material that doesn't belong here, then getting disenchanted with WB when it gets deleted:
Getting started with wikibooks
  • Wikibooks is a collection of open-source textbooks. Find out what this means.
  • To learn the wiki-markup-language syntax, see Help:Editing.
  • To sign your name (on talk pages), use four tildes, like this: ~~~~
  • Have a look at Wikibooks:Welcome, newcomers for more information.
  • Explore, be bold, and have fun!
I know, I just made the leaner welcome message, fatter... Webaware talk 00:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
Any objections? Whiteknight? -- Kowey 15:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
You called? Yes, I do like it. It's much shorter and more to the point. On the "Welcome, newcomers" page, we can go crazy and add all sorts of information, so long as we word it properly to benefit new users. I like it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Staff_lounge/Archive_35"