Wikibooks talk:Departments
From Wikibooks, the open-content textbooks collection
| Individual Bookshelf Talk Pages |
|
Arts department - Annotated texts - Art - Games |
| Related Pages |
|
Reorganization ideas: Wikibooks:Bookshelves/Generation 2 - User:Robert Horning/Bookshelf Reorganization - Wikibooks:Bookshelf Ideas |
| Help Wikibooks! - Bookshelf Tasks |
|---|
|
Problems
This was posted by Krischik on Wikibooks:Collaboration_of_the_Month/May_2006_voting
The following tasks need to be performed:
- Endless list of Red links - deleted books, suggested books, vanity entries - who knows. They all need to be checked and handled.
- Duplicated Shelves i.E. Wikibooks:Art bookshelf vs. Wikibooks:Arts bookshelf. Which is right, which is wrong?
- Page layout differs form shelve to shelve.
- Entries sorted by Alphabet, Category or Both.
- [[Image:25%]] have to be replaced with proper {{stage|25|Apr 12, 2005}}. (I got a vim script for that)
Sure enough work - and important as well
--Krischik T 10:37, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
Organization by audience
Personally I think the "bookshelves" should be more like portals - as effectively that is the job they are (or should be) doing. There are some excellent portals on Wikipedia (in particular French Wikipedia) that could be worth borrowing ideas from.
I also hope the Bookshelves COTM will look at "bookshelves" (by which I really mean portals) for searching by audience area rather than by subject. For example, we already have Wikijunior for 8-12 year-olds and Wikiversity for university style education. But we could also have ones for:
- Exams usually first taken at ages 15 or 16 (Wikistudy I, maybe);
- Exams usually first taken at ages 17 or 18 (Wikistudy II?);
- Books for professionals (Wikiprofessional?);
- Books for adult learning (Wikilearn?);
- Leisure books (eg chess (if it stays), gardening, cooking) (Wikileisure?);
- General interest books (eg the how-tos)
(note also that some books may appear in more than one of these categories)
Jguk 07:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nice idea - but you forgot Wikijunior and Wikiversity ;-) The nice thing of a virtual library has is the option to have on books on several shelves (and one shelve in several departments) --Krischik T 07:41, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, that's a very good idea. The simplest way to do that would be to create those six sections as separate bookshelfs, linked to from a "Books... By audience" link in the sidebar, with each shelf divided into subjects.
- As for portals, using portals like those on the French Wikipedia may frighten some users away from adding their new books due to the formatting complexity, relative to simple lists. Although this could be overcome if a few dedicated users monitor {{new}} and add new books to the shelves themselves. Looking at the French Wikipedia, some portals, such as w:fr:Portail:Gastronomie, are essentially just lists made to look pretty. Others, such as w:fr:Portail:Architecture et Urbanisme, are formatted in a totally different way and include sections on project coordination, article requests, new articles, and featured articles, creating more of a community spirit, but not including all major articles. Which one do you have in mind? For the latter, I have offered ideas on possible sections here. --haginძaz 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've used Wikibooks:Biology bookshelf as an example of what the bookshelves would look like formatted like the French portals. Comments? --haginძaz 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I've added sections on featured books and requests. --haginძaz 01:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
-
Suggestions and requests
Right now, book requests are being added to both Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks and the bookshelves themselves. So which method should be the standard? Personally, I feel that subpages, such as 'Wikibooks:Science bookshelf/Suggestions and requests,' should be used, in order to not crowd the shelves and divide requests by shelves. --✉haginძazt\c 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
... are mostly added by new and inexperienced users
Most book suggestions are done by inexperienced and most often unregistered users. Those users don't make a deep analysis as to where suggested books go. They look at a bookshelf, won't find the book they look for, hit edit, copy an existing line, hack the name of their desired book and that's it.
Because of this behavior Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks has never worked out. Neither have "suggested book" sections at the end of the bookshelf. Yes, they won't even scroll to the end of the page - they hit edit there and then. I fear subpages won't work either.
What did work was "suggested book" sub-sections for each seaction. My guess is that it worked out because no scrolling is involved. Now, a "Suggest Book >>" button - similar to "add New WikiBooks >>" - might work as well. And this could either lead to a subpage or to Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks.
--Krischik T 08:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- Now that User:Kernigh has sorted Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks by shelf, it'll be a lot easier to combine that list with those on the bookshelves. I think the "Suggest Book >>" button solves both the problem of overcrowded shelves and new users finding a requests section. If Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks ever gets too long, it should be broken up. I'll combine all the requests on Wikibooks:Requested Wikibooks in a week if there are no objections. --haginძaz 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Have a look at the Wikibooks:Domain-specific_languages_bookshelf --Krischik T 18:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- A bit difficult to spot. It should be on the left, as close to the book list as possible. --haginძaz 23:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Indeed it is not perfect just a first try. A perfect solution would use a template ;-). But you think to the left is better? I only flushed them right because that is what we did for "book of the month" and "new books" - I don't feel particular protective about the idea. --Krischik T 18:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Now that I think about it, the right would probably be better, since users are going to go to the edit link to add their book anyway. I say lets go with it. --haginძaz 23:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
Role of book series
Will book series, such as a Guide to Linux Software series, a Do-It-Yourself series, or an A-level series, be recognized as organization schemes? --✉haginძazt\c 06:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Short shelves and book lists
Short shelves:
- Merge into Wikibooks:Computer software bookshelf, or use as a series main page?
- I suggest that this be merged wth Wikibooks:Social science bookshelf, since it's listed on w:Social sciences and doesn't have many books.
- Biology and Physics can have enough books to warrant their own shelves. Merge with Wikibooks:Science bookshelf?
Book lists:
- These pages really try to be portals, and emphasise the need for the bookshelves to be more than just lists. Do we merge them into the bookshelves, --✉haginძazt\c 11:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Any ideas on what to do with Engineering and Computer programming? --haginძaz 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
- Indeed they are like portals. But merging them into bookshelves might not be possible. Especialy Computer programming spanns several bookshelves merging programming languages, programming tools and programming theory into one portal like page. --Krischik T 12:51, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Difference between bookshelves and departments
-
- I've now changed this page into a portal format - and I must say, it looks better for it (though I'm sure it can be improved further). I see someone has replaced the word "bookshelf" with "department" in the text - which looks good to me too. Presumably we should now rename the page to Wikibooks:Departments, Jguk 21:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's confusing to have some "bookshelves" and some "departments" - shouldn't we really just have one term (they're really synonymous here, aren't they)? Personally, I prefer "department", Jguk 07:01, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- No they are synonymous. Think of a library or large bookstore. All larger bookstores I know have a "computing" department (usualy on level 3) with several shelves (programming, office, etc. pp). And it was the same in university time. The large library had selveral deparments - mechanics, physics, chemestry, computing (on level 3) and each department had endless rows of shelves on various subjects. --Krischik T 07:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Naming
Bookshelf plurality:
- Wikibooks:Art bookshelf - Since it contains more than one art form, it should be renamed Wikibooks:Arts bookshelf
- Wikibooks:Social science bookshelf => Wikibooks:Social sciences bookshelf Contains several subcategories of social sciences. w:social science redirects to the plural version.
- Wikibooks:Study guide bookshelf => Wikibooks:Study guides bookshelf
Department plurality and capitalization
- Wikibooks:Natural Science department => Wikibooks:Natural sciences department
- Wikibooks:Special Groups department => Wikibooks:Special groups department
- Wikibooks:Social Science department => Wikibooks:Social sciences department
Other
- Wikibooks:Science bookshelf => Wikibooks:Natural sciences bookshelf Referred to on the template as "natural science"
- Wikibooks:Computing department => Wikibooks:Technology department
Any objections? --✉haginძazt\c 23:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
- I moved these as there haven't been any objections in a week. I'll update links if no one reverts. --haginძaz 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
More book details on bookshelves?
Perhaps we can add things like links to the print and PDF version and appropriate age level for books listed on the bookshelves? See Wikibooks:Alphabetical_Classification#F for an appearance example. --haginძaz 07:24, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note that I'm only suggesting adding more information to bookshelf lists, not creating templates or anything like that. I just used that example because it was left over as an example from another proposal. All that really needs to be added are links to the printable versions, and maybe also point out blue-linked books with no content, to save browsers a few clicks, which can be done without templates. --haginძaz 23:01, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Bookshelf namespace?
Can we create one to uncomplicate things a bit? Wikipedia has a "Portal" namespace for its small number of portals, and the French Wikipedia has a "Project" namespace, also rarely used. --haginძaz 05:05, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
- It might help. I dislike having to type "Wikibooks:xxx bookshelf" for links. "Bookshelf:xxx" would be easier. --Kernigh 04:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Good idea. --Krischik T 13:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Reorganization
At the moment, our book organization system is very limited and horribly designed. Here's a solution I'm offering that covers all the bases and is relatively balanced. If you would like, I can list the sections for shelves not already given. Please comment. If you have any concerns, please list them.
- 1 - Sections: annotated texts, mythology, philogy, methods and topics, national literature, folklore
- 2 - Sections: writing and rhetoric, area studies/cultural studies, music, gender studies
- 3 - Sections: ecology, earth sciences, astronomy, environmental sciences
- 4 - Sections: cognitive sciences, information science, sociology subfields, management subfields, management science, books on w:Category:Interdisciplinary fields
- 5 - Sections: electronics, computing technology, materials science, microtechnology, nanotechnology, military technology, biotechnology, aerospace, space technology
- 6 - Sections: agriculture, architecture, design, ergonomics, family and consumer science, forestry, journalism and mass communications, military science
- 7 - Sections: psychology*, anthropology*, general
- 8 - Sections: politcal science, linguistics, sociology*, human geography, communications
- * - These sections will eventually be given their own bookshelves.
--haginძaz 00:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'd suggest that we avoid "Miscellaneous" bookshelves. Mostly we could do this by giving the Miscellaneous bookshelves generic names, with only a little shuffling. Brian Brondel 04:22, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I'd be for that. Any specific suggestions? --haginძaz 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
- Do Business and Management and Education belong in Applied sciences or Social Sciences? RobinH 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- They can be considered as fields of both. I've also listed "Computer science" and "History" under two departments each. Although I wouldn't mind listing shelves only under one department for simplicity. I would also condense the link to, say "Miscellaneous natural sciences" into "Misc." and "Mathematics" to "Math." I just wanted to show the full shelf names so there's no confusion regarding that. --haginძaz 22:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I dislike having so many "miscellaneous" sections. Let us consider removing all of them. Any book would be listed in the closest available bookshelf. Having "miscellaneous" seems to encourage the creation of books that are sometimes outside the scope of this project. --Kernigh 04:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
- Outside the scope in subject or presentation of information? The latter would occur regardless, and the former would be limited by creating the specific sections I have listed above. I don't want an "all other natural science books" section in the "miscellaneous natural sciences bookshelf." It would only be limited to the four specific disciplines that I have listed above, which are just as much unique subfields of "natural sciences" as "physics" is, except for the fact that they don't have enough subjects to cover to warrant their own bookshelves. ("Behavioural sciences" would be the sole exception, as its more difficult to categorize.) I think that combining say, "biology" and "environmental sciences" into a more general bookshelf would actually encourage the creation of books outside our scope.
- The "miscellaneous bookshelves" act like our current "humanities," "social sciences," and "natural sciences" bookshelves. Would you remove our current "social sciences" shelf because shelves for "law," "business," "economics" and "education" already exist? In general, I don't see any sensible alternative to such shelves. Each department is different and I don't think changing all of them based on one rationale would be effective. But I would gladly support alternatives designed for each individual department. --haginძaz 05:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
How About
Template:Main Page navigation
Nice suggestion. However: The centre part of Template:Main Page navigation has about the same size:
but has the following additional advantages:
- It looks a lot nicer using Icons.
- Is easier to maintain as it could be reused by transclusion for both Template:Main Page navigation and Template:Bookshelves.
- Gives Wikibooks a better identity by using a more unified design.
--Krischik T 11:10, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand. I'm proposing changing our book organization system, not the template. I can show what my seven departments (excluding "Special Groups") would look like on the navigation template, if you like. I also wrote out the full names of my proposed bookshelves, so it would actually be even smaller when applied, if that matters. Also see Wikibooks:Bookshelves/Generation 2. What do you think of the departmental organization of my proposal? --haginძaz 13:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
This is an improvement over the current list of Books by Subject; but I think one important thing to consider is the possibility of these books being used in college classrooms: perhaps departments such as "arts & sciences," "engineering" and "fine arts" should be considered- Although at this point I would be more concerned with making departments with an adequate number of contributors. In the new merger of the Economics and Business bookshelves, I estimate somewhere between 0 and 3 active contributors for the entire bookshelf (although there can't be more than 30 active contributors on here?) Just a thought. DettoAltrimenti 01:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the key is to find a balance between our current distribution of books and school subjects. I divided the fine arts into three bookshelves (visual arts, performing arts, and literature). What should they be further divided into? I don't think the engineering bookshelf has enough books at the moment to divide it into several bookshelves, but I wouldn't be against doing so. Thanks for your response, hagindaz 02:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Hagindaz, sorry for putting my comment in the wrong place. I wasn't thinking of further dividing the bookshelves, I was thinking more of consolidating the departments. All four sciences departments can be consolidated, along with philosophy, religion, as the Department of Arts & Sciences. If anything, Applied Sciences and Natural Sciences could be put together. Of course, in the future this would change: Natural Science and Language books would eventually get their own departments, as would other current bookshelves. (time for a bad analogy) If I bought an old library and only had 50 real books, and some other scraps of paper, I would put them all in the same place instead of putting them where they might be if I had 10,000 books. Wikibooks is tiny- I don't think we should pretend it's not by seperating things we don't need to. DettoAltrimenti 02:37, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- What is the ideal number of books to have per bookshelf? (For reference: we have over 1000 books at the moment , all of which need to be listed on at least one bookshelf.) --hagindaz 02:52, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- The number of books is more like 2500 - 3000, although most of these aren't books in any real sense. A good example of a book of median length would be Samba, while the average is more like Clarinet. I agree, though, that it makes sense to put every single book on a bookshelf somewhere. Given that we have around 30 bookshelves right now, I'd say we want around 100 books per bookshelf.
- The real issue with consolidating the bookshelves is that there are so many books. 100 books per bookshelf is already a lot — probably too much. I think the right approach is to first merge books together, and only then consolidate bookshelves. This is a much bigger job, but probably a much better route in the long run. --129.79.157.64 17:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- We should only merge books that are designed for the same class and target the same audience. It would be better in the long run to have stubs on more advanced topics than to merge all economics books, for example, into one book, as has been proposed. --hagindaz 17:35, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
{{Requested books}}
I have created this little tempate to go to all bookshelves. It goes above the chapter names and will add "[>> Suggest Book]" link right beside the [edit] link. As discussed before the hope is that new user guided to to understand that the bookshelfes are only for existing books.
The three shelfes I fixed look a lot nicer now without all the red links.
Of corse there are lots of bookshelfes and they all need to get that template and I can't do them all.
--Krischik T 13:53, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
{{Requested books/User Message}}
I have ceated a standard explanation of how bookshelves are supposed to work. Since all bookshelves are to be semi-protected we always have a user to contact and I thought a standard message might be helpful.
--Krischik T 07:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikibooks:Biology bookshelf
In my cleanup work I just came across the Wikibooks:Biology bookshelf. It is not named inside the departments (just changed that) but looks completely different from all the other shelf. So what to do?
--Krischik T 10:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I've used Wikibooks:Biology bookshelf as an example of what the bookshelves would look like formatted like the French portals. Comments? --haginძaz 04:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Computer science in natural science
Computer science is currently listed under nantural science. It shpould be in Computing. PCU123456789 (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- Shelfs and Books can be named twice if that is appropiate. The aim is allwasy to make it easy to find the right book --Krischik T 07:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- Note that neither computer science nor mathematics are natural sciences. --haginძaz 14:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Definition list instead of unordered list
Currently most bookshelf use unordered list for there content. While easy to maintain I belive that definition lists would be more appropiate as it would motivate users to add a small description.
Compare the current All bookshelves with an older version. Or have a look at Computer_programming#Programming_Languages. Mind you: the texts there are to elaborate for a bookshelf.
Shure, portals like the Biology bookshelf look nicer but they are difficult to maintain - to difficult for new users having just started a new book. Besides: Bookshelf should not have any red links. I think that portals and bookshelfs are different concepts.
Info boxes are also very cool. But here are only three books using them right now. It will take months if not years until we get a significant amount of books to provide an info box.
Changing an unordered list into an definition list can be done quite quickly. Remember: we are now at day 25 of the collaboration.
--Krischik T 07:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
- As I mentioned above, I support including things other than the book title and status box that help users. For most books, I don't think adding descriptions and definitions would be of much value, as the titles are usually self-explanatory. However some books with ambiguous titles would really benefit from short descriptions (though not the paragraphs on Computer_programming#Programming_Languages). --haginძaz 14:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Does use a bookshelf mean add a category?
I'm obviously a newbie to wikibooks... The whole relationship between "bookshelves" and standard MediaWiki elements such as categories is confusing the hell out of me... I keep seeing notes about the importance of adding books to bookshelves. I'm planning to start a language book, so I head to Wikibooks:Languages bookshelf. Does it mean literally just add my book to that page? Or add it to Category:Languages? Please advise... pfctdayelise 09:06, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- No, both categories and shelfs are completely disjoint and serve different purposes here at Wikibook. Take an example at the book I contribute. It has an entry on the bookshelf Programming languages bookshelf and a Category. Notice the difference? The Category contains all the pages of the book which the shelf only has a refereBoth categories and shelves are completely disjount and serve. --Krischik T 13:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- So are the bookshelves are essentially just topic lists? pfctdayelise 14:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
Unknown
Hi, great site!
Structural Organization of Bookshelves
Perhaps we could just include books that are 3/4 the way complete in the template... or at least more than 25%. Maybe something like that. Then maybe have a complete list when you actually click on topic. --Remi0o 21:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
- There was some discussion about not using stages any more at some point, because books are always changing and being improved and there is no point in which a book is finished. I think the changes you've made make the page too long. What are you trying to accomplish or wish to gain by doing this? --dark
lama 21:58, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Add an interwiki
Hello, could a sysop add the interwiki to the french index ? fr:Wikilivres:Tous les livres Kind regards. J.M. Tavernier 20:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
