Wikibooks:Staff lounge/Archive 36

From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] User:Greyjasper

Want to get a second opinion on this user before I do anything rash. Aside from the fact that some of the language on the user page is questionable, it seems to be either some kind of advertisement or else some kind of homepage for a business, neither of which are really allowed. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My issue would be with the "hosting" aspect of this I think. The language is a little "street" but not that offensive, the misunderstanding of what Wikibooks is about could be more serious? A "nice" message maybe? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
If there is one thing I seem to be out of these days, it's "nice" messages. I'll wait until I see more activity from this user before I send them anything too deliberate. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
2 peeps and a coondog? --SB_Johnny | talk 17:22, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Heads up

User:Atomicmadhog - worth keeping an eye on I think. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for import from WP

I requested an import of w:Drowning on WB:RFI so we can keep the how-tos. It brings a tear to my eye every time WP deletes those wonderful how-tos :'( I don't think there's a suitable book for that page yet, but it'll be good to have when one is started (← foreshadowing?) – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I already imported it for you, but I wasnt able to get the complete page history. I agree with you about the how-tos, they really don't belong on Wikipedia, but there isn't enough effort by wikipedians to move them here before being deleted. If only we could get the authors of the how-to pages to come here along with their content.... --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
What about adding a plug for WB in their "OMGDELETEHOWTOS!" template? I imagine we'd have to ask, but that seems reasonable to me. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:10, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
There actually already is a plug in w:Template:Howto Perhaps we can ask them to make the plug bigger and more informative? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Already did, but more than one voice might carry some more weight. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 01:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

This has to be a copy & paste from somewhere but not got much time for now and would hate it to be forgotten - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not finding anything obvious on Google about it, although I also don't have a lot of time for a thorough search. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New "Toys"

Some info found today. Firstly we now have a local spam blacklist at MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist which may well be useful. The other is very neat particularly when finding bot pages and is Special:DeletedContributions. I know folk tend to just delete such - my own view is that placing a block (a week for me if no valid contribs) acts as a marker & is quicker than placing a user page message but this will allow a review of previously deleted material. Longer blocks can then be placed on repeat offenders.

Hope it helps someone - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just tried Special:DeletedContributions/Robert Horning and got a bit of a treat. Yeah, that is an amazing tool that can even be used to spot rogue admins. Good one there! This may be something to add to the list of tools to scan through for prospective admins and vandals in terms of what kinds of content has already been deleted for those users. I know that sometimes when I run through RC patrols for some users, I end up with a blank page for user contributions only to discover another admin beat me to the punch and caught the user and reverted his edits or even deleted the spam out right.
In terms of spam blockers.... it would be fun to see what happens if we add *.wikipedia.org or *.wikibooks.org to the list. That isn't too nice for the new users (who often use external links because they don't understand the internal link system) but it would be a way to force internal links for stuff like this. (*Please note this is a joke!*) I hope I don't use that page, but it certainly is a useful tool. --Rob Horning 22:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images from Barsathi ( talk | email | contribs )

These images have apparently been haunting us for a long while. They're all without license info, and Barsathi has had plenty of warnings on his talk and user pages. Unfortunately, the account doesn't have an email, so we can't contact him. All these images are being used in Diagnostic Radiology, and deleting them would leave the book in tatters, which is (I suspect) why it hasn't been done yet, despite a "non-negotiable" warning from Wikibooks:WikiProject:Image Cleanup that they were to be deleted in Nov/06. I wonder if we're ready to see them go or not. I started in on the job, but then pulled up this guy's image contribs, and did a double-take. I restored the images I had already deleted (2 or 3) pending discussion here. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:56, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a note on the talk page of a recent contributor to this book, Tdvorak, in case other contributors can lend a hand in sorting this out.
It would be a pity if we had to delete all of these images. I don't think it would do irreparable damage to the book, but the images definitely add to its usefulness. If these images can't be kept, then perhaps other contributors to the book can find suitable replacement images from the Wikibooks Commons or other sources. Webaware talk 03:19, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid I will not be much help with this problem. I have been editing the Radiation_Oncology textbook rather than the Diagnostic Radiology textbook, which are completely separate. I do agree that it would be a shame to remove them, as they are quite useful, but copyright issues are not to be trifled with.Tdvorak 03:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Oops, my apologies! I blame lack of caffeine, and will take immediate steps to remedy such. Webaware talk 04:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
What is frustrating here is that I don't see any reason (other than perhaps patient confidentiality issues) that copyright permission couldn't be granted for at least some of the images that I've seen him upload. I do see some problems in terms of damage to the book, as these images do seem to be integral in the method of presentation and some of the text explicitly describes some of the images as examples of the kinds of medical problems to look at. This is a key part of the book. Still, explicit permission from the medical clinic (and possibly the patients involved, but there may already be waivers on that issue for scholarly texts) may be required in order to use these images. I believe that this is something that requires some hard education on copyright principles and persuading the "owners" of these images to grant the copyright license.
Since I don't have checkuser status on any Wikimedia project, I'm curious if the checkuser rules permit doing a scan in this case to backtrack and source the IP address of this user for the purposes of trying to locate either this individual or the clinic he was working for. I know this is a long shot, but if this individual were a medical technician (or even an M.D.) at the clinic and used the IP address of that clinic, perhaps we could send a message requesting copyright permission directly from the clinic itself rather than trying to locate this user? If it turns out he was using an internet pub/bar instead or his home ISP, this approach would not really be worth trying to go any further. Just one more approach to try and solve the problem and keep these valuable images, particularly because of the volume of content (and the uniqueness of the images) would IMHO be worth while to follow through. --Rob Horning 06:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Honest answer - I'd be a little tempted to take a look. However, and with some relief, the answer is that the data won't be in the CU log as the contributions were quite a while ago. --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: Was a decision made here? If we're going to delete them, it can be a little project of mine. If not then... ?? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am planning to start uploading some images into the Radiation_Oncology textbook that I am working on. As part of that, I need to educate myself on copyright issues dealing with medical images, patient permissions etc. It may be that some of images in the Diagnostic Radiology textbook might be salvageable. I probably won't get to it until September however, if it can wait that long. In terms of the user IP, I can see if I can find out where Barsathi ( talk | email | contribs ) was based; if some academic institution in the U.S., it probably wouldn't be too hard to contact their radiology department and ask for a permission Tdvorak 11:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I hate to have to play Mr. Copyright Hawk™ again, but we really shouldn't be messing around with this sort of thing. This user was around for a couple months, had a couple hundred contributions, was not welcomed or mentored by anyone, and then disappeared. It's absolutely a "shame on us" situation, but that's water under the bridge, and we should not presume to know the intentions, understanding of copyright, or anything else about a user that had no real interaction with other Wikibookians. Creating free textbooks is a noble goal, and we should never resort to cheating because we can only do our harm to our common passion when we do that. We need to Delete them, without prejudice (including our common wish to assume the user understood our mission and the meaning of the GDFL), and in a cool and businesslike manner. Sorry to poop on the picnic, but if we care about the credibility of our project, we need to act responsibly... even if it means damaging a book for lack of images. --SB_Johnny | PA! 18:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Johnny: copyright violations aren't just a violation of our local policy, they represent a violation of applicable copyright laws. These images have been tagged as copyvios, appropriate warnings have been sent to the appropriate places, and now it is time for us to act. I'm not sure what kind of decision needs to be made on that matter, but dragging our feet doesnt do anybody any good. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
They're not (necessarily) copyvios, they're just unlicensed images. Sadly, I don't think there's a decision to be made here: it's a "we gotta do what we gotta do" situation. We can't be sure whether or not they were intended for free use (here and elsewhere... free to us means free to everybody!), so we need to do the right thing and delete them. If the user ever shows up again, we can easily undelete (especially with the nifty new "view deleted edits" thingie). --SB_Johnny | PA! 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I suppose the same hard line will be taken with the vastly more numerous unlicensed images in the FHSST Physics textbooks then? Webaware talk 23:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to say that any "hard lines" need to be taken. We should take all possible steps to try and solve the problem before we do any deletions. However, unlicensed images do pose a problem that we really can't ignore. It's like saying that vandals should be allowed to run rampant just because it would be a shame to block them. You give a few warnings, you try to do what you can to help, but when all that fails we have to delete them. I wouldn't say that anybody is in any hurry either, but we can't ignore it forever. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Given that Tdvorak has offered to look into this in September, I don't see that there should be any rush to delete the diagnostic radiology images until then. The FHSST Physics images, however, pose a much greater challenge as they really are vastly more numerous and could be seen as core to those books. In many instances, they could be replaced by something off Commons, or easily rebuilt from scratch. However, there is simply a large number of them. I don't even know if they are all from the same user (User:Riaan - no email registered, BTW), as I've only sampled a few here and there. Is there some way of tracking down the original uploader and getting them to license their images? Webaware talk 23:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
User:Riaan is one of the people whom I had jumped head over heals trying to get in touch with. I had found the group's website who had worked on the FHSST book, asked who Riaan was, got an old email address (which I can't even find right now) and sent out a friedly email asking for some clarification. I never received a reply. I'll see if i can retrace my steps and find that email address again so somebody else can try.
If User:Tdvorak wants to look at the images, that's fine with me. What we can't do is put the issue off forever. I mean, if Tdvorak can't figure it out, we shouldn't just wait for the next person to come along and look at it. I want to give these images every benefit of the doubt, but eventually when all our leads have been exhausted we need to have the resolve to actually delete them. So long as people are willing to take that final step when the time comes, i'm in no hurry. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the overall sentiment of this thread. I suspect at the end of the day they will end up needing to be deleted. However, from a medical perspective, they are a nice collection of images, so it would be nice to salvage them. If I haven't made any headway by end of September, I propose they get deleted. Tdvorak 20:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ← reset tabs
OK, that settles it for me, then. If Tdvorak can't do anything to salvage these images, they get deleted. Please note, WK, that I'm also not in favour of dragging things out forever, but I do want to ensure we've had a crack at saving the images in a book before deleting them.
w.r.t. FHSST, let us know when you've exhausted your search for Riaan, and I'll make it a project to start replacing these images. As I mentioned above, many would be easy to replace with something from Commons or otherwise rebuilt in Inkscape or Visio (being more scientific than artistic, there won't be any problem with recreations). Webaware talk 00:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I did some more research on it, i'm going to post a message about it below. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I have looked a bit further into the Barsathi issue. There are 2 IP addresses that seem to be associated with edits that Barsathi did, 67.121.73.11 (AT&T) and 24.16.87.188 (Comcast). Unfortunately, they belong to ISPs (as opposed to being registered to a university, a hospital, or something I could contact about the images). I don't see a way to get any more info about the image origin, short of going to AT&T and/or Comcast and trying to find out who those IPs belonged to at the time of those edits. I am not sure that's a realistic endeavor, at least for me. So as far as I am concerned, those images are not easily salvageable. Sorry :( Tdvorak 02:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I actually deleted them a long while ago. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 14:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Mike.lifeguard: My understanding was that I will look into it, and if I can't find any more, we delete them. It would have been nice if you had noted in this thread (which you started) that you deleted them already, and saved me the work of looking it this. Tdvorak 15:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hum

I am extremely suspicious about a new user created today. They already have an account here so the new one is odd and a message was left on my user page about an open proxy (which I acted on cross wiki - there was evidence to that effect anyway). I've mailed to user asking but could I ask that an eye be kept on this with CU if necessary (look in the log!) --Herby talk thyme 16:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thought more - blocked it, I'll apologise later! --Herby talk thyme 16:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
Dealt with --Herby talk thyme 17:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can you rename me?

Can I be renamed from Skunkmaster to Skunkmaster III? If you can do this, please contact me via my user page. Thanks.

Skunkmaster 04:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Local username blocklist

Anyone know anything about mw:Extension:Username Blacklist? Doesn't seem to be implemented here. I was advised of it during a rush of vandal account creations elsewhere and thought I would at least ask. Not sure it is relevant but (I understand a bugzilla req is needed) when/if we do need it, it would take a while to get. Views welcome, regards --Herby talk thyme 11:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is installed here, in fact there is already some usernames blacklisted. --darklama 13:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - got a link so I can get an idea what it is like (I obviously didn't get the search right!). Is it regexp kind of list? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes its a regexp list. --darklama 13:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Local spam list

Webaware deleted a spam page & I thought I might as well see how the format works so I started our MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist off. Looking at the page he deleted quite a few sites were .cn ones - what are the odds of us wanting a link to any sites there? If folk agree I'll (or someone else) can just put that into the page - may save some work in future? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

However - I didn't get it right (I saved a page with one of the sites in) so someone brighter than me might take a look!? --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I just tested this in my sandbox using the spamlink starting with D, and the blacklist appears to be working just fine. It only kicks in when you save a page edit, not during a preview. Webaware talk 10:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
OK it doesn't prevent saving as plain text but it does prevent a full link. I suggest that if we see any spam turn up it is probably worth adding it if we have the time. There has been a spate of uk radio station stuff around recently which I'll add when I next see it (back as a spam fighter again!) --Herby talk thyme 10:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Specifically, it only looks for "http://" and what's in the blacklist. Fair enough, I'd say. Webaware talk 10:52, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Not sure if this could help at all, but there's some similar expression work done here that could maybe be browsed for good ideas. The formatting styles are different of course but some of the most-commonly blocked sites (these are for ads, used with Adblock in Firefox specifically) could be added to our list. -withinfocus 12:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] strange users

A few new usernames have popped up, I'm going to CU them in a bit, but I want to get more thoughts on it:

And there are a few others. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:17, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the previous ones (Webaware's) and CU. The IP was used on Meta in the last week to attack me among others. I'll watch for the Ip in the log with interest! --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, your name was brought up in this round of attacks too. I blocked all these current ones, along with the source IP for a week. I didn't check if it was an open proxy, the block may need to be revised if that is the case. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks - I'll do some research later! --Herby talk thyme 13:37, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Cross wiki vandal source to some minor degree so far. If I were that way inclined I'd bet it will come up again but there is no info that it is an open proxy and no record on en wp which is odd. Thanks WK, regards --Herby talk thyme 13:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and extended blocks on the two IP addresses, one was a http proxy and the other a tor proxy. --darklama 14:23, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
  • reset

Thanks Darklama - gone blocking - where did you get the info (email if that is better?) Cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WB:CSD

For some reason, the print version for blender 3D is listed as a candidate for speedy deletion, but I can't find a tag on the article (if I did, I'd delete it because there's no way that the PV is getting deleted unless there's a good reason for it). Am I missing something, is the server slow, or is there something more serious wrong? Mattb112885 (talk to me) 17:50, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My first thought on the matter is that the blender print version transcludes a page that is being nominated for speedy. I'll skim through it and see if that's true. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:51, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
I went into the page and made a small edit. This updated the cache, and the page is no longer in the deletion category. Large pages like print versions that transclude lots of other pages don't tend to recache very often. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Policy on the hoof - spam!

Err - just realised it might be an idea to share "my" policy on this!

As we have our own blacklist it seemed daft not to use it but maybe views on "how" we do it could be good! My own rule of thumb for ages as far as the bot/index pages are concerned is that it is quicker to block the IP for a week than place a tag. If you then find it has been blocked once before I then make it a month - it's simple anyway.

For the blacklist I take the view that we may as well save unnecessary deleting and editing by prevention so

  1. New pages solely with links. Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
  2. Mass insertion of links (usually the porn spammers). Block for a week first and add the url to the blacklist.
  3. Any other link insertions can happily be for discussion and should be - they are quite rare.

To add to that - if I come across the links on other wikis for the first two categories I have added & will add them to ours (& vice versa). I realise there is a cross wiki blacklist on meta but my experience of them has shown them as less than helpful and it may well be that some links are appropriate to some wikis - the fm radio one I've blacklisted has a "legitimate" page on en wp. However someone has created numerous spamm pages on other wikis with this link in - I do not see that we are likely to require the link and the very act of creating mass pages makes me sure that is was an attempt to spam wikis. Just my 0.02 and views welcome, cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess I take a more hard-lined stance on this then you do, Herby. People who make accounts with the intention of spamming only shouldn't be blocked temporarily. Accounts that are created with the sole intention of spam or vandalism should be blocked forever. With IP's it's a separate matter, but an IP that is solely used for spam should be treated very harshly. The occasional link or two is fine, sometimes there really is no line between a relevant link and a link that can be constituted as "spam". A few isolated incidents is worthy of discussion, but mass-spam should be blocked and deleted. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Sorry - I was referring to IPs on shorter initial blocks. Any form of abuse of Wikibooks by a registered user is always indef for me. In practice named spammers are quite rare. When I do find any I would block the underlying IP for a period anyway. This is really about either many links in one page or many pages with the same link in. Hope that is clearer. --Herby talk thyme 07:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to add to this I guess if anyone does add to the list then some sort of narrative about why might be useful in time to come of if the entry is challenged? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 06:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
What, like "they SPAMed Wikibooks?" Perhaps just a comment with date listed, so that it's easy to clean out the old ones. Webaware talk 07:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
At least half of me agrees here. However - without question - the most persistently argumentative folk across wikis are those who have their links removed (never mind blacklisted)! The fm radio included has already been challenged on Meta. A warning, that's all --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I reckon that linkspam should be blacklisted. EL in general, no, but what is apparently linkspam, yes. Given that, what more is there to say in the commentary than that it was linkspam? If the spammer objects and can give good cause for adding their link to a module, then they are more than welcome to present a case for removing the link from the blacklist. Webaware talk 10:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sure (& the blindingly obvious ones are just that) - of course the only problem is that we don't have any policy on, or definition of, external links the are acceptable/unacceptable (and I've just remembered something else I really must do that will take a lot of time because - if it starts - this argument is endless!) --Herby talk thyme 11:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • ← reset tabs
I reckon that linkspam shares something with porn - you know it when you see it. Having identified something as linkspam, not just an EL, what more needs to be said when blacklisting it?
As for a policy on EL, good idea! Can you resurrect that proposal you had kicking around a while back, so that we can kick it around some more?
For the record, I'm in favour of sensibly using EL, and you could even say that I have an "inclusionist" approach to EL. Still, I think it would be good to set down some guidelines on EL so that we can prevent some modules and books turning into web directories. Webaware talk 03:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User:Riaan and FHSST books

I've done some more research on the FHSST books. For those who don't know, none of the images in these books are properly tagged, so about 200 of them are being slated for deletion. Here is what I have learned:

  1. These books are part of a collection being run by http://www.fhsst.org
  2. The FHSST books are being actively updated from that website, and are not being maintained by that organization here on wikibooks.
  3. User:Riaan appears to have been a previous contributor to the FHSST organization, but I can't really find any records of him being a current contributor there.
  4. All the FHSST books are released under the GFDL. I assume that all images from these books are so released.
  5. From what I have seen, the images in the books hosted here on Wikibooks are the same as those in FHSST books on other websites. If they are the same images, then the ones here fall under the same license (GFDL). I have not checked all images.

From these points, it seems safe to me to consider all these images as {{GFDL-presumed}}. If we do that, then we don't need to delete them. It seems as good a conclusion as any. What do other people think? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So the books are being actively updated elsewhere and their wikified versions are not being maintained here? Why are we keeping these at all when there's another source that contains all these books' content and more? -withinfocus 19:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Abandoned by the original contributors, but still being read and lightly maintained, it appears. I'll make a start on retagging these images soon - help from others welcome! Webaware talk 23:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
To Withinfocus: It's never really been a policy here to delete things that are duplicated elsewhere or even to delete things that are better represented elsewhere. Just because somebody else is hosting a divergent fork of that material doesnt mean that it isn't worthwhile for us to keep it here.
To Webaware: I have a bot that could do all the retagging automatically, if I could get a list of all the images. If you think it would be easier, set me up with a list (or find a way to generate the list automatically) and I'll take care of the rest. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 01:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I can get a list using Special:Prefixindex, but need to check each one on the list, so... might as well do it manually anyway. Won't take long. Webaware talk 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Done, with a bit of help from darklama. I also did Image:Fhsst tasswitch.png, which was the only contribution by User:Den and is allegedly used on FHSST Physics Electronics:active circuit elements, but I think the page is broken and the image is too - perhaps someone else can check this out. Webaware talk 04:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I know that's not the practice but I think it should be a consideration in many circumstances. We're here to teach people things, not keep our own content just because. If there's a better source of information for what I want to know, I'd like to use that instead. If these books truly are forks and have different principles and goals I think it's quite appropriate to keep them here, but if it's just an old stale copy that people could still work on at the updated location then I wouldn't want to host the content here. I'm interested in offering the best services possible. -withinfocus 13:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That certainly is a fair consideration, and i'm sorry if i dismissed it too quickly. If it was determined that the FHSST books are better represented elsewhere, maybe we could merge our FHSST books into some of the other science textbooks we have. We wouldnt need to delete anything, and our other books would benefit from the rapid influx of new materials. Of course, that's if we determine that these FHSST books are just stale old forks of other books. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 19:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Labeling them as FHSST might be the real problem since that is a dedicated project elsewhere. I definitely agree that other books could use this content, and if someone wanted to place these things inside generic books on physics and mathematics for instance I think those books would be greatly improved. I just don't want people wasting effort in the wrong places. -withinfocus 13:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:No license

Should this template be protected (and whatever it is that redirects to this template... Nld or something?)? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 17:18, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I protected them both, I can't really see a reason why most users would even want to modify these templates. Plus, considering the important roles they play (alerting admins about possible copyvios) I dont think people should really play with them anyway. I've protected them now, but if people think they shouldnt be protected we can unprotect them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibooks:Administrators' discussion index

Unless I've made a mess of it (perfectly possibly - I have elsewhere) admins and any others interested may care to place this page on their watch list. There is a sense in which it allows you to keep track of individual discussion on pages rather than merely see that the page has been edited since you last looked. It is running & working well on Commons & Meta and I found it very useful (it runs from the toolserver). This "index" can be a communal one and other than adding pages or tweaks that I may have missed I suggest it stays that way. However it is perfectly possible to create your own index of whatever sort you want (I have my own monitoring talk pages on Commons & will set up the same here). Let me know if anyone needs help/clarification (it will be blank until the next update anyway). Cheers --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be working ok - I notice dupes on the deletion page bit but something like that is happening with some Commons pages at present so it could be the toolserver (I'll ask Bryan if it persists). My "talk" one is working if folks want to see an example of customisation. If you see any pages that should be on there feel free to edit or let me know. Comments welcome - cheers --Herby talk thyme 16:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crosswiki help with smaller wikis

There are a couple of issues here. There is the Single Login one which one day will hopefully arrive and I guess it might be an idea to have your own user name on any likely Wikis (I did this for quite a few sometime ago).

However there is also the issue that we are well aware of here - the desirability of getting Checkuser rights for some people and the difficulty of getting 25 affirmative votes. It really has helped us to control the less pleasant form of vandalism here. I have been working with others (our "own" Az1568 & particularly Lar) to try and use vandalism information across small wikis to help protect them by sharing some information. Quite a few of my recent blocks are as a result of vadalism information on other Wikis together with the relevant CU info. The more projects that have the rights the more information that is available to all of us to control the vandalism.

While it is possible to ask stewards to carry out these checks where there are no local checkusers they are requently busy and there has been a backlog for a while now (I have a feeling that - because they are not involved in the particular wiki concerned - they do not see the trouble that is caused to local admins trying to block the vandals. As such two well established users on en wikiquote are seeking these rights at present supported by Larry & I as well as the community. If you were thinking of registering your username on Wikiquote anyway (or already have done) you may wish to look at their requests while you are there - it could well help us by discovering vandal IPs in advance of them getting here!

Thanks & regards --Herby talk thyme 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nasi Goring

Can some one please place a recipe for Nasi Goring an Indonesian fried rice dish in the cookbook section.

Regards

Steve

Do you have a recipe for it, or know where we can find one? I've never heard of this particular dish before, but if you have a recipe that we can use, we would love to have it. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I've added it to Cookbook:Requested Recipes. WK, get thee to an Indonesian restaurant and order one (it's their version of fried rice, often served with a fried egg). Webaware talk 00:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Page

Hi,

I would like to propose a new design for the main page. Whilst I am generally happy with the main page as is, I feel that it doesn't quite focus on the actual work that we do here at wikibooks, I do not feel that it displays enough books. For this reason I have designed a layout that shows many more books, dealing with each more fairly by way of time whilst not extending the length of the page a great deal.

The page I have designed can be found here here.

Please take a look at my proposed design and let me know what you think.

Thanks Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 18:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's an improvement, but I think it'd be even better if the left and right sections were reversed. IMHO --Jomegat 00:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
What is the distinction between the four books listed under their names and the six listed below? It all seems to be alphabetical and there seems to be a chance that a single book could be listed in both places. (In fact this was the case when I first looked at it.) -- xixtas talk 02:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
There isnt really any distinction between the four books and the other six, i completely agree with you there that the distinction is unneccesary. I have removed it. For the updated version see here. Is this any better? Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 16:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I like this redesign, in general. I think that the top section, including the discussion of what wikibooks is all about, and the list of departments, needs to be made smaller. We could do that by having only a "Browse" link that points to the WB:CCO, and then 5 links to the various department pages. I don't think we need a million links to the DDC and LOC systems, each bookshelf, wikilearn, wikiprofessional, etc because all these things are listed at WB:CCO. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree, the bookshelves should remain listed on the main page, since it is the first page visitors see. I don't have a problem though with making it all more compact, so long as they remain listed. --darklama 17:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of how you feel about the bookshelves, I think you can agree that the Browse stuff (Dewey decimal system, etc) is not very useful for most people, at least not useful enough to be front page material -- Kowey 13:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
With the exception of the departments and categories link, I agree that the browser links can go. I think both the departments and categories link can be included on the front page in some other way. --darklama 13:56, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's either or, because the "departments" are just lists of bookshelves. We either need links to the departments (which I prefer) or links to the bookshelves, but we most certainly do not need any redundancy on an already-crowded main page. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

What we do here at Wikibooks is to create textbooks for people to read and study. The completed textbooks must take pride of place if readers are to be engaged. I would like to see a front page that has a brief intro at the top, a display of our best books next and the bookshelves at the bottom. RobinH 09:43, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with RobinH almost entirely. The books are of predominant importance: We should not be wasting a lot of space (at least not space at the top of the page) for the bookshelves because the books are more important then the shelves are. A very large link to Wikibooks:Browse, and more vignettes of books on the main page would serve us much better then a million links to all sorts of other pages first, and then a list of a few books second. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I disagree again. Moving those links to the bottom of the page, inconveniences anyone who doesn't want to read about the books, because they will have to scroll down first. I think the bookshelf links could be made rather small, so its not taking up too much space at the top or perhaps we could use some creative css styling. For example rollover menus, or copying from "My Preferences" in the monobook skin, use a tab interface, with a "welcome" tab and a tab for each bookshelf that would include a list of featured books from that bookshelf. --darklama 12:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
A tabbed interface is not a bad idea at all. On a related note, i've been trying to think of a way to make a very prominent "Welcome!" link for new users that will point to the necessary help and information pages. Having a tab for new users will allow us to give them all the information they need, right on the main page. Having a similar tab for organization will allow us to have more then just the bookshelves listed on the main page, especially once we start getting a number of other indexing pages made up and available. Darklama, if you want to set up a test prototype of this idea, we can probably discuss it more completely. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone whose interested can take a look at this example for a general idea of a tabbed interface. I'm still working on what I want to put in each tab area, but this should at least work as a prototype of what I'm talking about. --darklama 01:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats quite impressive. It would answer any misgivings that I might have if the top level tab contained the featured books, with perhaps a line or two saying "welcome to wikibooks", "this is the free textbook site where anyone can contribute".RobinH 10:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What about something like this: prototype. Using the code from Darklama i have put together this prototype. The colours are irrelevant and can be changed. What do we think about the layout and content, i have tried to address all of the issues raised here, removing the bookshelf lists to make way for a per department bookmark and featured book listings. Urbane (Talk) (Contributions) 11:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I like that very much. However, I would like to propose a suggestion, and I would like to state up front that this isn't a criticism: Since only one "page" of featured books can be shown on the main page at a time it is a little counter-productive. For instance, in one click you can view the other book categories on the main page, but with a single click to the side-bar you could also view all the featured books at once at WB:FB. However, this idea might be a really good one to help us overhaul all the old "department pages". If, instead of the clumsy bookshelf templates (that I would like to delete anyway) the department pages contained links to all the shelves and also the featured book templates from those shelves? If the department pages were nicer, we could post much bigger links to the departments from the main page.
Either way, the new main page prototypes are looking very nice, all efforts are appreciated, and I certainly don't want to poo-poo any ideas just yet. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Adding an entire textbook to my personal watchlist

Is there currently a way to add an entire textbook module to my watchlist? I know I can add each and every page manually, but this can be time consuming for a large book with hundreds of pages. Now that there's a way to edit the raw list, is there perhaps some kind of wildcard notation that will allow a book (e.g. Foo) and all its subpages (e.g. Foo/Bar, Foo/Index, ... Foo/*) that exist now and in the future to be included on the watchlist? Brim 20:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

If the book's pages are all in one category, you can see recent changes on the whole category. It means keeping a link somewhere for looking at these recent changes, separately from just looking at your watchlist, however. e.g. Special:Recentchangeslinked/Category:Radiation Oncology. Webaware talk 01:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
To the best of my knowledge there is no such wildcard for the new watchlist. Because of the way the link tables are stored in the database, I would be surprised if such a wildcard would even be possible. However, you could ask the developers for it at bugzilla if you think it should be added. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uploading files

I have some .pdfs that I'm using as references. They were emailed to me and I can't find them on the interwebs. Can I upload them to WB and have a link to them in my sources section? – Mike.lifeguard | talk 02:27, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would they be suitable for Wikisource? -- xixtas talk 02:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I suspect they're copywritten, actually. I'll just have to find the URL. Nevermind. – Mike.lifeguard | talk 03:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blender Error

In blender tutorial noob to pro/make a model it refers to clicking on ctrl-x is this not a mistake?

Yes, this probably is an error. Luckily, this is a wiki, and you have the power to fix it. Just click the "edit this page" tab at the top, fix the error, and click "Save Page". It's the beautiful thing about wikis, everybody has the power to help. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Muggles Guide

The Muggles guide has received almost 500 edits in the last 7 days. Many of these are from well meaning anonymous users. Some are of low quality although there has been less vandalism than expected. I expect the trend will continue for the next couple weeks. Anyone wanting to help keep an eye on things can click this link. Recent Changes to the Muggles Guide. --xixtas talk 01:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate anyone's help with this matter. I figure the book will be very popular for the next month or so and hope I can count on the normal RC patrollers to catch junk. If you have a question about any content additions or organizational edits, feel free to contact me on my talk page and I'll look into each request. Thanks. -withinfocus 02:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Furthermore, if anyone spots new pages in the namespace if they could please tell me. Things might get placed in the wrong areas or without the correct formatting and I'd like to fix them as soon as possible so that a good example is set for new users coming across the pages. Thanks a lot. -withinfocus 12:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FaceBook Stype Apps In Wikipedia

I have been watching facebook and their new implementation of external applciation into the closed facebook community. I was wondering of Wikipedia was going to do something similar? The benefit to the particpants is to get access within the Wikipedia community to apps that may facilitate activities common to the community. They could also be entertaining in some way to the community. What do you think about this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kevinfff (talk • contribs) .

In a word: unlikely. At least there is unlikely to be anything for all users. Groups of like-minded users may use additional tools, such as custom javascripts or something similar. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Board election results

To all interested parties:

Board election results are in, results can be seen at meta. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 16:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Hi,

I read where storing students' work is important, of course. Can anyone advise the best method when using computer labs, not a classroom?

Thanks.

Katherine

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "storing students' work". What work, their contributions to Wikibooks? --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair Use Images

I read an interesting blog post today about Fair Use, written by Stephen Bain. He is quick to point out that he is "not a lawyer", so I would take anything he says with a certain grain of salt. However, even if he is half right, he does raise some issues. The link is here.

It does raise the interesting point that a fair use image really can't get away just with a basic template that says "this is fair use". Instead, each individual image requires a specific rationale for why the image is being used, and why it is being considered as fair use. Without proper rationale, a "fair use" image here is basically just a copyvio that is hidden behind a template.

I dont want to excite anybody or anything, but the issue has come up several times before (mostly in discussing other issues) that many images here that are tagged as being fair use really don't qualify as such. I really have to question, out of all our "fair use" images, how many of them are properly attributed and rationalized? And for that matter, if we remove all the "fair use" images that don't really qualify, how many legitimate fair-use images do we have left? It's certainly something that is worth studying. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is actually something that the policy page addresses. I think we should enact this policy, before things get too far out of hand. I notice that Mattb112885 is already looking at this. Webaware talk 00:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm more in favor of rejecting that proposal and instead moving to have Wikibooks:Media accepted. Which IMO does a better job. --darklama 00:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks good, although not as explicit as the current fair use proposal. Either we need to be more explicit in the media proposal, or the fair use proposal is required also. Webaware talk 03:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
More explicit how? --darklama 17:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I had this in mind, where the Fair Use policy proposal details what sorts of images might qualify for inclusion (given that they meet the requirements stated in the Media policy proposal). Also, I like this bit giving examples of what definitely doesn't meet policy. The challenge, of course, is to not bloat the very nice, succinct Media policy proposal... Webaware talk 07:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The media proposal is succinct, and has the added advantage that we won't need to also accept the Wikibooks:Image use policy, which is stagnant. I would accept either option. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 03:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't necessarily understand why you are hostile against nearly every sort of policy proposal that I've ever written, any additions I make to existing policies, and also insist on removing some aspects of a policy that have stood the test of time and are a key part of the policy. I have to point out that the very explicit points of what kinds of media are considered acceptable, as pointed out by Webaware, are critical for some people to really understand fair use. This isn't bloat, as I don't see the number of acceptable applications of fair use expanding substantially over the next few months or years. If this sort of policy is very vague about what kinds of content are acceptable or unacceptable, we get into the situation where some individuals will try to push fair-use right to the extreme limit... as is happening on Wikipedia. This is a curse that we currently don't have on Wikibooks... particularly when there are broad categories of images like modern art works which simply don't even appear on Wikibooks.

I should note here that I'm not against "merging" the two policies... as the media policy does have a slightly broader scope to it. Although this does get into the debate about general purpose policies that are all encompassing or much smaller scope policies that address one specific topic in a clear fashion. My experience is that people are less likely to modify broad policy doucments... mainly through intimidation. Particularly once the policy has become something that is officially sanctioned. This doesn't seem to be nearly so much of a problem for policies of smaller scope, as attitudes can change over time... allowing the "next generation" of users to add their own input into the process. --Rob Horning 12:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rob, the more explicit the requirements for fair use, the better off we are, because people WILL try to bend the rules, and we can always amend the policy (it should be designed to be easily amendable) should an unexpected new rationale come up. Maybe we should make specific Fair Use templates and just put them on the list of license tags (though I know, fair use is not a license) instead of just the generic fair use tag. Just take the generic tag out, that way they would HAVE to justify their use by one of the biolerplate templates, and it would be very likely to be unacceptable if it didn't fit one of those categories. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 13:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Darklama has a particular pension for brevity, and I wouldn't take that to be some sort of direct offense against you, Rob. Darklama won't say in 10 words what can be said in 2, and he wont use 5 policy pages to say what can possibly be crammed into 1. I do think that the Media policy page does reproduce many of the major concepts of the fair use policy proposal, while at the same time incorporating the Wikibooks:Image use policy that has received absolutely zero attention from anybody. The idea that we would need to write an additional policy to cover non-image uploads (pdfs, audio/video, etc) almost boggles the mind. To that effect I think that a convergent policy about all media uploads is preferrable to the alternative. Now, whether we need to also integrate the Wikibooks:Fair use policy and Wikibooks:Copyrights is a different issue entirely, and I would prefer to keep the issues of media and copyrights separate. I do think that the fair use policy, once we decide on it, should be merged into the Wikibooks:Copyrights page, instead of being it's own page. That's just a small personal preference, however. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I rather agree with the idea of merging the Fair Use and Copyrights policies, as they are related. The Media policy is good as it stands, without taking the complexities of Fair Use and Copyrights into account - which is why I thought that they should either be merged or stay separate. I now think that Whiteknight has hit the nail on the head (which he has a penchant for, and may later see him awarded a pension), that the Image use and Media policies are one topic, and that the Fair Use and Copyrights policies are one topic. Webaware talk 14:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Whiteknigth has it right about me preferring to use less words to say the same thing. The idea of having to have a different policy for each type of upload, was what drove me to try create one general proposed policy to cover any kind of media that might be uploaded. I like the idea of covering fair use in the copyright policy. For example I think the part dealing with copying text as a form of fair use, makes sense in the copyright policy. I've added examples from the fair use proposal to the media proposal, but I don't really like results and think perhaps that might make more sense in the copyright policy as well. The copyright policy could link to the media proposal for further details. --darklama 15:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is O.R. allowed in Wikibooks?

My images in the commons that I was using in a wikibook have been deleted by a group of Commons administrators that say that "not a single wikimedia project allows Original Research, and those images were Original Research". I do not deny that they were O.R., but we were using them in the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter. I thought it was acceptable, since any book writen by someone may contain O.R., (given that a book is not an encyclopedia, one can express knowledge recently discovered by himself?). I have checked the wikibooks policy page and nothing there regarding O.R., can you enlighten me?

For e.g. I am writing a book in English to learn Kapampangan, which has never been done before, not even on paper. This is entirely Original Research from the editor's part (mostly my part), and Wikibooks was the ideal place for this collaborative work. I thought it was OK to put some O.R. there. And then I infered that other O.R. was also alright, unless we have specified which type of O.R. is allowed?

Please le me know the official O.R. policy for wikibooks. --Lgriot 13:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The answer, in short, is "no". However, we do have plenty of exceptions and allowances when it comes to certain things. If I may ask, what were the images about? What about these images are considered to be OR? If the images are an integral part of the book, I would be inclined to say they are perfectly acceptable. Do me a favor: Upload a few of the images here and post a link to them so that we can check them out.
As to the Kapampangan book, that seems perfectly fine to me. You are teaching the material in a way that has never been done before (which is fine) but you aren't creating new subjects (which would be bad). --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit more inclined to say that original research does have some place here, but we need to make sure things don't go off the deep end. Anything with analysis takes a certain amount of opinion and personal insight and the Muggles' Guide has some analysis like this, however we make it quite balanced since this is a collaborative environment. The above-referenced images were obviously not easily-editable here (since they're images) and I personally might want to disagree with some of the assumptions made in those images. I think it's best to leave these deleted and work on what they represented in text form (already somewhat contained in the Guide's pages) which we can all improve upon. I think the concept of original research changes to something else once enough people become involved and we need to make sure collaboration can continue; the images did not promote this idea and stood off to the side as the "bad" original research in my mind. -withinfocus 17:29, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
If there's a discussion page about this on commons, please drop a link... some projects do indeed allow OR, but if I understand where you're going, this probably wouldn't qualify as valid OR on Wikiversity, either.
OTOH, as a commons admin who has dealt with this issue in the past, I should point out that "fan art" as an entire class is actually forbidden on commons, since they are considered derivative works (so if, for example, you made a drawing of some creature that's featured in a Harry Potter book, you would actually need J.K. Rawling to release it under a free licence, since the artwork is derivative on her creation). --SB_Johnny | PA! 19:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
On Whiteknight's request I have uploaded Image:HP Wizarding Schools possible locations.PNG. There was a text with it explaining the reasoning behing each coloured area, with quotations from the books, but that is now lost, since they didn't only delete the image, but also the whole history for the image and its description (at least I can't retrieve the history, maybe there is a way that I don't know), and I didn't keep a copy of my text, I had assumed that, whatever happened, the history would be preserved. As you can see, there is no denying that it is Original Research, but it is certainly not fan art. This is research in English literature, on one of the most influential book of our time. It helps visualising/understanding the books' classification of Europe's wizarding cultures. Some people may disagree with the assumptions, and then contact me to discuss a new version. Or even remove its links in the Muggles' Guide to Harry Potter and any other place where it may be referenced, but delete the original source file and apparently also its history, that is a bit overkill to me. I would never make someone's work totally unretrievable. SB_Johnny, the discussion is over, unfortunately, but here is the link to the votes: [1] --Lgriot 21:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
What you uploaded here really is an interesting concept. It's not pure speculation, especially not if you have quotes and evidence to back up your assertions. It does also encourage readers to think about the books, not only as a fantasy, but also as being grounded to some degree in the real world. Plus, drawing a map like this really helps to ensure that readers really think about the descriptions in the text, not just skim past them. I am inclined to say that images of this sort, if properly supported, should be allowed to stay. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 22:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I'll try to rewrite the text and quotes + facts from the book that were backing my assumptions. If the authors of the the muggles' guide want this image in their book, or want a different version with less speculation, we can discuss and I can work on it. --Lgriot 22:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth (& with a Commons "hat" as well) this does not bother me. I looked at the content and the deletion discussion when I first saw this discussion and I'm not that sure I agree with the Commons decision. I see no real issues with these contributions - cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The page that image was used on is here. Please continue this image's discussion there if you can as this is now a content issue. I'm not wild about a non-easily-editable image being used on the page but if the research behind it is solid enough then I figure that's fine. -withinfocus 14:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] LaTeX convertor

I have created a small program which converts wiki markup into LaTeX. To use it, copy the code here into a text file titled Wiki2LaTeX.java, and run the following commands:

cd "/path/to/Wiki2LaTeX.java"
javac Wiki2LaTeX.java
java Wiki2LaTeX --title="The Book's Title" --genall

--hagindaz 02:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't commented sooner. This looks like a great program, and I'm sorry that it hasn't generated more excitement. I'm going to take a better look at the code (because I dont know much about LaTeX), and hopefully I can start using this in my own projects. If I could figure out a way to do it in javascript... --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, maybe I should start writing reports in a wiki and use this to convert to a printable file ;). Of course I wont but I should, since I'm having to twist an awful lot of arms to get people to give me permission to install microsoft equation editor on the work computers... >_<. Mattb112885 (talk to me) 00:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Geometry for elementary school and Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education

These look good to me but they have received no extra nominations for a while to make them featured books - see Wikibooks: Featured books/Nominations. The Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education book is a vast group project that covers this field in depth. RobinH 16:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been interested in promoting these two books for a while now, but a combination of unretracted reservations and a lack of positive support has stopped me from doing it. At this point, if nobody else is going to vote on it, we could just be bold and promote them, assuming that all undefended criticisms are void. I would like to see some more activity on that page, but with so many nominations it is a little bit overwhelming sometimes. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 17:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I hope that raising the issue here might persuade one or two more people to take a look at them and vote at Wikibooks: Featured books/Nominations. If no-one adds a vote over the next couple of weeks I agree with your idea of being bold. RobinH 09:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Some issues really are just struck with complete voter apathy. We can say that nobody is objecting to the issue and so consensus would seem to dictate that in the absense of those objections the affirmative position carries the day. However, the system we have been using on that page is more based on discrete votes, and opponents (and people who are simply critical of all deviations from proceedure) will say that we also don't have a strong showing of support on which to make an affirmative action. These cases appear to be lose-lose, and it really will be up to the decision of the person who finally says "okay, this is enough". Two equally good courses of action, in my opinion, are to call these votes in favor of the affirmative (promote them to featured), or else to go into the book and actively improve all problems that were pointed out by the opponents. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 13:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I just voted like a mad-man, hope others will follow. -withinfocus 16:58, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical classification

I was wondering, in the "alphabetical categorization" pages, is it possible for the subcategories (for example Category:Alphabetical/C) to list their components in alphabetical order? I think they're in the order they were added to the categories right now, which somewhat defeats the purpose (though they ARE correctly organized by first letter). Regards. 76.192.5.108 14:20, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is possible, if a book is tagged with the correct identifier. Most books were only put in the major category according to the first letter of the title, not categorized according to the second letter (or additional letters) as well. We are working on it, the category pages that you see now are very recent creations and need alot of work. --Whiteknight (