Talk:Main Page/Archive 2

Important notice regarding main page
Due to repeated vandalism, the Main Page is protected from edits. Note, however, that some of its subsections are editable templates. If you see any obvious vandalism in any of the following templates, feel free to revert the changes:


 * Template:Browsebar
 * Template:New
 * Book of the month - subpages thereof
 * Collaboration of the Month - subpages thereof
 * Template:About
 * Template:Bookshelves (all)
 * Template:Sisterprojects
 * Template:Donate
 * Template:Bookshelves (all)
 * Template:Sisterprojects
 * Template:Donate
 * Template:Sisterprojects
 * Template:Donate

Also, note that the following two templates are not at present being kept up to date, since they require a SQL query to generate:



Aya T C 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Top ten active
The top ten active users and wikibooks list hasn't been changed for over three months now! If the features that updates these parts isn't available any more, they should be taken off the front page, as it makes it look out of date and neglected. If, however, there is a way availabe, why isn't it up to date? --Mark Lewis 18:42, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I totaly agree. I haven't been visiting wikibooks for long, but the fact that the first thing that a visitor sees is a list dating back from march, gives the feeling that "This site is no longer updated." Almogo 21:00, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. If this section is not updated by an automated process, or some standards are put in place to define whose responsibility it is to update it and when, it should be removed from the front page. It is likely to confuse visitors otherwise. They may think that they are getting a (really old) cached page, or that the site it dead. Are there any standards in place already which cover these issues? Aya 19:18, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * There are instructions on how to do it somewhere (i've lost the page), but it requires downloading a 200 meg SQL dump and the link to said dump is incorrect. Kellen 19:52, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * This is hardly a solution. I don't believe I have the necessary permissions to change this page, but someone ought to. Still, the administrative system does not guarantee that any of the people who are able to sort this out are still active users of the system, nor even alive. This needs to be resolved. To keep this site ordered, meaningful and up-to-date, responsibilities must to taken on by, or assigned to specific users. If those users cease to become active users, the responsibilites must be transferred. Anarchy must not prevail, or else the site will eventually degrade into rubbish and meaninglessness.


 * This is not the only problem. The system for organising and catergorising books also needs an overhaul. The different means of indexing books and pages are out of sync, and confusing, especially for new users. Even the distinction betweeen what is a book, and what is merely a page of a book is poorly defined. I also noticed no indications regarding sensible use of namespaces. This page, for example, seems completely out of place. Perhaps the wiki software is to blame. I guess it works well for Wikipedia, since it is only a single book, and the namespace usage is fairly obvious, but I don't think it works here without more guidelines.


 * The fundamental problem here is with language. Everyone has their own interpretation of what different words actually mean. If people are to co-operate effectively, meanings of words within specific contexts must be well-defined. In a way, this is the whole point of Wikipedia, which is why it works much better than Wikibooks.


 * For an example, check out the work I've been doing on this page and its sub-pages. By keeping track of naming standards, pages, templates, and images, it's so much easier to create a comprehensive guide, whilst minimising namespace pollution, and simplifying the process of restructuring a book, without having to rename pages. Perhaps something akin to this on a global level might also prove successful. Certainly some reflexive system of rules ought to be very effective. I am reminded of the game theory game of Nomic. If you ignore the scoring system, this is effectively what we have been doing with our own naming standards, by discussing and modifying the rules based on our discussions.


 * Any thoughts?


 * Aya 17:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Hm, it's now July. Nobody around who can remove that list from March? I think it looks much better if it is removed completely, than letting it be outdated by half a year. Allefant, 9 July 2005
 * Completely agree. Can someone PLEASE remove this or update? It looks utterly tacky. Serge July 9, 2005 01:54 (UTC)
 * Update: I've discovered the problem with the DB dumps. There's an erroneous line:

/* */;


 * This needs to be removed from the file before you can import into MySQL. Now if someone can tell me where the scripts are to generate the stats, I can get this done. - Aya 21:31, 9 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I assume, this is the complete process to get the wiki code for it: . All done in SQL. And Do you have permission to update the list? If so - maybe you can temporarily remove the outdated list, until you (or the original author) manages to re-run the SQL? Allefant 06:50, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I've temporarily removed the out-of-date info from the page, and provided a link instead should someone eventually get this data sorted out. It's somewhat dependent on getting up-to-date DB dumps, and the last one there is too old to generate up-to-date statistics from. I'm also unconvinced that the data set is as up-to-date as it claims. - Aya 19:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I really think it makes the front page look better for now. And I hope this gets sorted out, maybe whoever runs the server can install a script to produce a monthly activity report from the DB automatically.. Allefant 20:12, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove of book listings on the front page?

 * Just too many books to list here
 * When you click on a topic, the list of books under that topic are most likely different then the books on the front page (either the author adds it to the topic listing or directly to the front page).

Lets just simplify it and put all the books on topic pages and have one or two books per day/per topic as "books of the day" for the front page--RobKohr 17:17, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Book of the month
I would like to suggest a "book of the month", similar to how it is working in the German version of Wikibooks, because it seems to work quite well there: Every month all registered Wikibook users can vote from a couple of nominated books for beeing next month's "book of the month". I guess Wikibooks is maturing to allow for 12 excellent books to be displayed on the main page a year (similar to Wikipedia's "Featured article"). --Andreas Ipp 18:39, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I would like to reserve at least a quarter of the main page for the Book of the month, to increase the value of this award. In the future this should preferably be a well-selected picture with some introductory text to the "book of the month". In the last week of January, I would like to increase the interest in the vote by placing a picture of a big question mark "?" with the last call for voting. I will try to set something up during the next couple of days on my user subpages, and present it here first. If somebody could create a really cool kind of questionmark (maybe floating above a book, ...) that would be great! Otherwise, I would probably only contribute a very simple question mark. Also if you have other suggestions for this, let me know. (PS: Googling around, one can find a few very nice question marks, but I'm not sure whether I can just upload them to the commons?) --Andreas Ipp 08:15, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is my suggestion for the change of the main page: User:Andreas_Ipp/Main_Page_suggestion. If you have administrator right, all you have to do is put these three lines

===Book of the month=== 
 * before this line.

===About Wikibooks===
 * (The main page has been locked just a week ago by User:Gentgeen, and I don't have administrator rights). Thank you very much! --Andreas Ipp 12:57, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I just found out that the main page was not locked anymore, and I made the change by myself. :-) --Andreas Ipp 13:17, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Change Featured Wikibooks to Most Active Wikibooks

 * Since the book of the month (see above) would take the role of the "Featured Wikibooks", I would suggest to rename Featured Wikibooks to "Most Active Wikibooks" - and list the, say, Top 5 of currently active Wikibooks (that means highest number of contributors in the last month (can be checked e.g. by "Related changes" or by a still to be defined SQL query).
 * "New Wikibooks" is fine, as books get rotated through, but..
 * "Struggling Wikibooks" is quite undefined. It is not clear who can add books to this category and who will take them away again. Either it should be also organized in a kind of rotating manner (add books with a date and delete the first in list), or by some kind of voting system.
 * "Wikijunior" is just promotional, but to be fair it should contain a link to the Wikijunior background, stating that it is a project started by the Beck Foundation approaching the Wikimedia Foundation. --Andreas Ipp 19:17, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I replaced Featured and Struggling Wikibooks by. --Andreas 20:24, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Here the last featured and struggling books:

Featured Wikibooks Featured

Struggling Wikibooks
 * Open Source
 * Visual Basic
 * Alchemy
 * Alchemy

Changing new books template
I would like to suggest moving Template:New to Template:Newbooks. I already started Template:Newbooks. I was going to go ahead with it myself, but I noticed the Main page is locked which would prevent this from happening without an Administrator stepping in. I suggest this change because I noticed its being used elsewhere by accident from copying over help pages from Wikimedia. Wikimedia uses Template:New for another perpose. So far only two pages are effected by this cross over, Help:Edit summary and Help:Page history. --darklama 19:06, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, but don't just fork off a new page (now removed). You should instead set up a redirect until the point where an administrator has changed the page. - Aya 20:06, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Removal of Wikibooks display from main page
It seems obvious that Wikibooks is growing a lot and taking up too much space on the Main Page. I've replaced the display of Wikibooks with a link to the template. This way, there's an entire page devoted to all active Wikibooks.

The Main Page should be developed further so that it has more interesting and useful information such as "Book of the month". I hope this is acceptable to everyone. -- Mkn 12:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hi Mnk! Your changes are just in the spirit of presenting a clear and concise first page for both, first-time visitors and active Wikibook users. You should be careful though, that there are several versions of the homepage (standard, table-free, and text-only), and you adjusted only one of them.
 * I personally like to have the template of all Wikibooks on the first page, because it gives a richer view of what kind of books can be found, and your link ("all ... can be found here") is not prominent enough that each first-time user will click on it. I hope you will accept that I revert this change, and put the template back in. --Andreas Ipp 13:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Follow-up: I think, in the future we should try by keeping the main page more clean not by removing the bookshelves template, but by carefully commenting out books that look like stubs (they will still stay fully prominent on the bookshelf itself - just not in the template - and as soon as there is reasonable activity, they can be put back again on the main page). What do you think about this? --Andreas Ipp 13:30, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree with Andreas: The link wasn't at all prominent and it's doubtful that (1) a new user would even see the link; and (2) that a user would be likely to click on it. MShonle 15:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * OK Andreas Ipp. I also thought about that but I'm not sure how else to make it more obvious to navigate to the active wikibooks. I just thought there's a need to seperate the books from the main page. Or maybe I'm following Wikipedia design too closely.  -- Mkn 21:21, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I just came back from a seminar by Edward Tufte: I think we need not be affraid of having links to many different books, people can figure out the scrolling part. I think the information is still navagatable because people can easily find the section they want. (For example, it's not hard even scanning just 5% of the words to find the computer science or biology or any other sections.) Perhaps to handle scalability we'll want maybe some icons next to the sections: your typical Sigmas for mathematics, Atoms and beakers for science, Computers for computer science... But even without icons listing the books is still ok. MShonle 01:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Top 10 active
Shouldn't this be by the most edits in the past whatever (month week day, etc.) instead of number of users who've edited it. 1000 minor edits by different users doesn't make it more active than 20 major edits of around 1 page each (for instance, I know I'm exaggerating people). Also, as of now, someone's replaced the arrow pics and it's really ugly with those HUGE green arrows, it looked better before.--Naryathegreat 23:49, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Hi Naryathegreat. About the ranking: I wanted to make this list an indicator for the community effort on a book. In this sense, having 20 different people looking into a book and making a small edit each indicates more community interest and activity than 20 edits by one single user. This way, you get those books to the top that might interest most people (and not very specialized books that only 1 or 2 people really understand - they edit their books anyway...). That's the idea behind it. But I might take up your idea and publish a second list which ranks all books according to total number of contributions. It might be interesting what comes out there.
 * 2) Someone (User Everlong at Commons) replaced 2 of the 3 arrows in use by smaller ones, without changing the pixel number in the template. I reduced it now from 20px to 12px. Let me know if it looks nicer now on your screen (on mine the arrows did not get enlarged and did not seem so huge).--Andreas 09:29, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

March book of month
It's March now so shouldn't there be a new book of the month?Bawolff 19:48, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The book of march is HSE, it is present on the main page with introductory text and a picture. If you can not see it, either you have to refresh your browser cache (by forcing a reload), or the wiki-server provides an old version - for whatever reasons - to you. Try to log out, and have a look at the main page. You should see the change. --Andreas 21:07, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks I see it now Bawolff 01:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Top 10 active for March?
We're halfway through April. Shouldn't the homepage show the top 10 active for March instead of February? --Spiderworm 22:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The March statistics are now on the main page. There has been a slight delay, because the statistics are based on the database dumps which have been released a few days after April started, and it then takes a couple of days until I find time to process the data by SQL scripts. --Andreas 15:36, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Main Page Graphics
Wikipedia is a thoroughly socialist venture, however whoever thought that the symbol of Soviet Russia is a good symbol to proclaim this with should read the Wikipedia article on the USSR, lol. Pretty rediculous and offensive.


 * It was just vandalism, if you didn't figure that out yet... See Power structure for a discussion of the political model of the wikis. - Omegatron 12:26, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just a comment on the numb-nuts who put it there.

main page looks screwed up
theres a big wikibooks in other languages right in the middle of the mathamatics section. Bawolff 01:34, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Templates not getting updated?
I updated the BOTM and COTM templates, but it's not showing on the main page. What's going on? Reub2000 10:48, 1 Jul 2005 (UTC)
 * There is an issue with how the main page refreshes within your browser. I'm having problems myself (using Mozilla).  Normally it isn't a problem, but consider that if you have made changes, that it has taken effect.  If you close your browser down and restart it, you should see the new changes, for instance.  Ugly soultion, I know, but it does work.  Now if somebody could give a good explaination....  I think it has something to do with the expiration setting for the main page, as sent out by the MediaWiki software.  I don't seem to have any problems beyond the front page.Rob Horning 18:52, 2 Jul 2005 (UTC)

Blender description
Hi all,

I'd like to thank all those that voted for the Blender 3D: Noob to Pro book for book of the month! But also, I was wondering if somebody could change the description of what Blender is on the homepage with the book of the month listing. Right now it says this:

"Blender 3D/Noob to Pro is a book that explains how to use the 3D modeling program blender."

But the Blender is so much more than just a 3D modeling program. Maybe something like this would be more accurate:

"Blender 3D/Noob to Pro is a book that explains how to use the Blender, the open source 3D creation suite."

--Spiderworm 4 July 2005 17:47 (UTC)

Finnish Wikibooks has 100 pages
Our Wikibooks has grown to a hundred page textbook collection. I'll update Template:Wikibookslang. –85.76.79.162 8 July 2005 10:10 (UTC)

Travel
I thought this was already settled, but what is London (the Collaboration of the Month) doing on this site? Doesn't it still belong at Wikitravel? If it wasn't the CotM, I would probably use VfD instead. Has something changed? - SamE 16:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Too many new wikibooks
I have taken it upon myself to try to keep books older than a month off "New Wikibooks" - can we get some consensus maybe to change this to two weeks? The box is getting far too big and cumbersome, like the rest of the Main Page. Serge 10:32, July 16, 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I like it either. What do you think ought to be on the main page? - Aya T C 13:01, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm in the process of working out a new proposed structure for the Wikibooks main page but as an interim measure I am removing all books written over two weeks ago from the "New Wikibooks" to save on screen clutter. If there is major objections the following books were removed.


 * Database Law
 * Portuguese grammar
 * Render a SolidWorks Model in Maya
 * Software engineering
 * Accelerando Technical Companion
 * Web Design
 * How to try sushi for the first time
 * Samba
 * How To Tie A Tie
 * Ten Stupid Things Beginners Do to Mess Up Their Contradance Experience
 * How To Build A Pykrete Bong
 * Raising Chickens
 * AQA Information and Communication Technology
 * AQA Information and Communication Technology

Sorry about the rushed decision its just if someone is not bold then who will be?

I am going to start an experimental test front page so we can collaborate on a better..well, front page. It's here Experimental front page - Serge 09:31, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Okay. But I wouldn't expect too many other people with enough passion to help to change your fork of the Main page. Have a look through the rest of this talk page, and some of the issues raised in Staff lounge to see what other users think should and shouldn't be on the main page. A few common suggestions:


 * Removal of any ephemeral content not being kept up to date (i.e. Top Tens).
 * Removal of complete book listings from the bottom. One of my other projects is to sort out the bookshelves, but it's a big job. I'm still deciding on a classification scheme (Dewey is the best I can think of right now).
 * Some sort of obvious link for newbies to send them to a page to help get them up to speed if they are new to wiki-based systems. Preferably get them off the site completely, and on to a safe test site. (see: User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks).

Once you get a main page you're happy with, post a note in Staff lounge to get the attention of an admin who can actually make the appropriate changes to the real main page. - Aya T C 10:28, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Top Ten Users
Top ten Users is now a long list of XXX sites. Please remove.


 * Done. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 03:40, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

To: Donovan -- same thing happens again ... top 10 users all XXX sites.


 * See Important notice regarding main page - Aya T C 15:02, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Trolling warning
We need to start trolling a bit. We need to look for dead, or completely stupid books and stop them from spreading. Neospeak and Excuses(?) are just two examples. People, we can do better than that.


 * Potential contributors are reminded to take a good look at What Wikibooks is not before starting any new book, this is to prevent any later ill feeling. Note, in particular, that every book is expected to act primarily as an instructional resource (e.g., a manual). Any books that fall outside these guidelines, unfortunately, risks being deleted. (Donovan|Geocachernemesis|Interact) 03:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Personal Wikibooks?
Note: For clarity, I have abandoned the wiki practice of each user replying at the same indent level throughout the post. I tend to split up large chunks of other posts, and reply to each part separately. Indent levels ought to represent temporal distictions (i.e. what chat came first) rather than user distinctions.

I'd like to express my concern that there's a section on the main page, under 'New Wikibooks', called 'Personal Projects'. I'm not sure whether this has been debated before, I couldn't find evidence of any discussion here or in the staff lounge, but surely this type of thing doesn't really belong on Wikibooks? I mention this here first as I don't know whether this is merely pseudo-vandalism of the main page, or wether a decision has been made by the community at large to allow this kind of thing. I point out that in the prologue of one of the books under that section actively discourages anything other than minor editing. Lor 18:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)


 * This is entirely my doing, so you may fairly point the 'finger of blame' squarely at me. See User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks for justifications. Note that the pages linked to in the "Personal Projects" are all subpages of user pages. - Aya T C 17:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm in agreement with Aya. Maybe there is some way to make clear that "personal projects" should be subpages of user pages but otherwise we need somewhere to put NPOV books. - Serge 09:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * Considering the enormity of this project, trying to make anything 'clear' is nigh impossible. See User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks. I did add a note to the top of the page Neutral point of view, but again, we're perhaps incorrectly assuming that users have even bothered to read it. I'm beginning to think that the only workable solution is to just exemplify good practise in your edits (especially on highly visible pages), and hope people copy your examples. - Aya T C 16:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I think we are in denial if we think that books can really remain totally NPOV (when was the last time you read something that was completely NPOV) but we do need a way of seperating these type of books from strictly neutral instructional books. - Serge 09:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * 'NPOV' is a bad expression. Even Wikipedia's version has reams of clarification to get around that fact that 'neutral point of view' is a bad choice of words, since every 'language lawyer' attempts to pick it to pieces. See also User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks. Perhaps it's just sufficient to say "anything you write in the main namespace can be edited by anyone, so if you write anything contentious, don't expect it to stay there". - Aya T C 16:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * That sounds like a good idea. One idea I have for the front page is a segment to inform newbies/actually any other editors - eg. with link to sandbox, syntax help. Maybe we could have a prominent link to a page explaining what you've written above. Serge 08:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Already addressed in User:Aya/Wikibooks/A critique of Wikibooks. - Aya T C 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * The other point I might add is that at the moment neither the breadth nor the depth to deny space on the Main Page to projects that have content on them. Although I realize we need some sort of "new book recognition" as incentive I dislike the idea of huge slabs of page space being given to books that hardly have any content. Any ideas for new segments featuring books with substantial content, anyone? Serge 09:52, July 25, 2005 (UTC)


 * The closest thing we have right now are the percentage images to indicate potential completion, and the 'book of the month' to indicate that a work is comprehensive enough to be worthy of the title. If you can think of a better idea, I'd be pleased to hear it. - Aya T C 16:46, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Another idea: I was thinking that if we have a prominent listing of all bookshelves we could start to have a rotating "Feature/Completed/Whatever You Want to call it" book for each shelf. I will endeavour (but no promises) to try to find time to work this into my experimental front page (BTW well done Aya on the critique of wikibooks. Lots of goood suggestion) Serge 08:23, July 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a good idea, but the bookshelves are in serious need of tidying first. - Aya T C 18:04, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I certainly don't want to point a finger of blame at anyone, and I must say Aya that your Critique looks extremely thorough, well researched, and relevant. My concern is that these 'personal wikibooks' are actively discouraging collaboration, and editing. It promotes the idea that a certain wikibook is "my wikibook". Now, I completely agree that there are some NPOV topics, and books about non-NPOV subjects (and I ask any readers to humour me for the moment and accept the general definition of non-NPOV in its broadest and most accepted sense) that simply -can't- be collaborations between many people - can you imagine a collaborative "Critique of Wikibooks"? It would be an all out edit war, of course. I agree that these books must necessarily be personal. My point is that they perhaps need another forum for promotion. The main page of Wikibooks is a medium for the promotion of Wikibooks as an extension of Wikipedia, and as such for Wikibooks that encourage collaboration, and bold editing by many users. As a quick example, a Wikibook entitled "Critique of Wikibooks by Aya" would, to me, be against the philosophy of Wikibooks - but a Wikibook entitled "Various Critiques of Wikibooks", as a collaborative effort showing various user's critiques of Wikibooks, would be very much acceptable.


 * I'm often very rambly; I realised that I can sum up my position very quickly. I don't think that sub-pages of user-pages should be promoted on the Wikibooks main page - especially as personal projects. Lor 20:51, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah. Now I see what you mean. First of all, I've noticed that both of these 'Personal projects' have passed their two-week period, and have now been removed. Also note I have removed the 'Personal projects' section until this dispute is sorted out.


 * The reason I originally put the section in, is that some guy kept trying to advertise his somewhat less NPOV work on the main page (in various inappropriate templates thereof), and there's not a lot you can do to stop it, so I decided a good compromise might be to allow it, providing it was a link to one of the guy's user pages, and clearly separated from the communal books. In a way, the work was a set of the user's own personal philisophies, and I think adding these things to your user page shouldn't necessarily be discouraged, since it can only serve to help users to better understand each other. In hindsight, I perhaps should have made the distinction more clear, but the main page is protected, and thus awkward to edit.


 * I guess I have somewhat shamelessly exploited the main page to promote my own work, but I did want to get as many opinions on the subjects there before I start making any radical changes, and that seemed like a good place to advertise. The point is, I could've put my book in the main namespace, and made it a community work, but I was worried it might spiral out of control without consistent editorial control. In a way, all it is, is a summary of the various issues that have arisen in Staff lounge and other pages which serve a similar role as a forum of discussion. Sure, it's possibly not NPOV, or it's possibly 'primary/original research', but I figured it was useful (at least to me, but I've received several complimentary comments from other users), and usefulness seems to be the determining factor in WB:VFD.


 * Editorial control is really the distinction between these two categories. I feel some books benefit from having a primary editor, whereas others may not. Would this be a better way of wording the main page? If not, what would you suggest?


 * Also note that some of the more regular users here are trying to re-assess the whole Wikibooks project, and its goals/policies/guidelines/procedures/practices/scope. There's currently some discussion going on in User talk:KelvSYC (one of our more active administrators). If you have something constructive to add, I'm certain it would be appreciated. - Aya T C 20:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Books that don't exist
"Learning Mac OS X" is listed as a Maturing Text, yet it doesn't actually exist. The link should be removed from the front page.


 * Fixed, although be aware that the list of books is not part of the (uneditable) main page, but an editable template included on it, which anyone can edit by clicking the "edit template" link below each section. - Aya T C 18:04, 10 August 2005 (UTC)


 * This is a tricky issue, IMHO. It is best if you can somehow set up a consistant manner to start a new Wikibook, so it can be put on a bookshelf or otherwise organized and found after it has been created.  I don't see any problem at all for somebody to "create" a new link on the front page as a new Wikibook and then afterward go and start entering content into that Wikibook.  It would be wise in a situation like this to create an initial stub and then save it just to let people know you are serious that you really do intend to start the book, but otherwise it should be no big deal.  If a link like the one above stays "red" for a day or two, I don't see any reason to keep it there, however.  --Rob Horning 18:36, 10 August 2005 (UTC)