Talk:Wikijunior/Archive 2

New Title Policy - Revisited
I think that the current new title policy is stifling the growth of Wikijunior. I would like to see us add more titles and grow Wikijunior a little more quickly. I'm not sure if I know the perfect recipe but each time we launch a book, we get new contributors with an interest in working on it. My idea is this. Instead of launching a single new book quarterly, we launch a new book whenever there is enough support.

One way of doing this would be to check the voting at the beginning of each month. If any of the titles has 5 or more votes from users with more than 20 edits, the leading vote-getter will launch. Voting will start over and the next month the leading vote-getter will launch. If no title has 5 or more votes, there is no title launch that month and votes continue to accrue until the next month, or the following month.

Some of the advantages of this proposal:
 * allows us to potentially launch 12 books a year instead of just 4.
 * good book ideas can be launched faster.
 * sets a minimum interested contributor requirement.
 * more dynamic development environment may attract additional contributors.

Does anyone else have an opinion? -- xixtas talk 03:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm all in favour. I don't like the current system as it deters editors who have to wait 3 months before they can start their book. Xania [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 16:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep in mind that the original "policy" that was even enforced through page deletions was to have only the three "standard" Wikijunior books until one of them was published and available on Amazon.com.  I thought that was a silly policy on the whole, and there were many additional book ideas that would be appropriate for Wikijunior than were originally offered.  Still, the idea here is that we ought to strongly encourage new participants to work with existing content rather than creating hundreds or thousands of new book titles that simply sit undeveloped, such as is found on Alphabetical classification.


 * On the whole, this title selection process has been rather successful, even though it has been subverted a few times in the sense that some participants here have simply gone on and created the Wikijunior title anyway without even going through the new book of the quarter process. Some very amazing books have been written, including some content which has consistantly stayed at the leading edge of being some of the best of Wikimedia.


 * The reason for only launching one book per quarter was to consider that the number of Wikijunior participants at the time the process was initiated was rather small, and it was thought that trying to put together a whole Wikijunior book in less than 3 months before the next cool project was started seemed a bit overwhelming. Simply put, there weren't enough participants to justify a new book on a monthly basis.  The original intention was to change this to a monthly installment eventually as Wikijunior grew and more people could be found to sustain such a level of development.


 * In fact, one of the original "objectives" of Wikijunior was to have enough content that we could set up a monthly periodical where kids would receive a new Wikijunior book each month in the mail from a Wikijunior content publishing house. Somebody even went through the effort to register an ISSN number (like the ISBN, but for magazines).  The idea was to try and have enough content "in the pipeline" of development at various stages so volunteers wouldn't feel pressured to meet a hard deadline.  I don't know if this will ever be done, but it is certainly something to think about.


 * My only concern about this current proposal to move to a monthly book topic is again due to the level of participation. Even at the  current interval, the next book title to be displayed and worked on is only 10 days away (on July 1st), and will likely be World War II as the topic.  Due to the removal of the Wikijunior templates on the Main Page, the new title vote or even Wikijunior:New Title Suggestions page has lost quite a bit of the participation that it enjoyed previously.  I understand that this is a proposal to modify how this may be selected as well, giving a minimum threshold as well if there isn't that level of participation, but is a month enough time to get this book suggestion developed enough before we move on?  --Rob Horning 00:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some things that I have observed about how Wikijunior when we launch a book:
 * We get new contributors who come to work specifically on that book.
 * The rate of edits on the book is very high for the first few weeks and then goes into a steep decline eventually leveling off to a fairly constant low level of activity after a couple months.
 * Activity on Wikijunior as a whole goes up.


 * I think that this revision in the new title policy is worth trying. I don't think we'll actually end up launching a book each month (at least not right away). I do think we can give each book a good start in just a month. If you look at the history of book top pages and compare the state of the page after the first month with the state after three months, I think you'll find that there is usually little difference. -- xixtas  talk 03:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Building Awareness for Wikijunior and Wikibooks
I think Wikijunior is a very valuable resource, though it is under-resourced and certainly has room to grow. I have decided to "be bold" and become an advocate for Wikijunior in the Open Ed community and the broader educational technology arena (primarily K-12). I am hoping that over the next year or so this will result in more people joining the community and contributing.

One way to do this is to get Wikijunior books listed in some of the Open Ed repositories so that more people know about them. To move this ahead, I have started creating metadata for OER Commons, which will then also feed into ccLearn and other sites. I am starting with the featured books that are educational in nature.

If you have any feedback on this, I'd love to hear it. Also if you know of a mature book that is not currently "featured" or if you'd like to send me an abstract of any book you've worked on or are familiar with to include, that would be helpful too.

Once this is further along and in OER Commons, I'll post an update. Kfasimpaur 22:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC) talk


 * One of the things I believe is necessary is for a physical print version of some of the Wikijunior books to become available, that can be sold at more or less reasonable prices. This is a very hard chicken-or-egg problem that is very difficult to crack, and something that is going to take a fairly sizable hunk of real cash... and something that simply must come from outside of the Wikimedia Foundation.  The WMF certainly is not interested in getting in the publishing business...especially after Brad Patrick pushed for the WMF as an ISP philosophy.  When the WMF was Jimbo's private plaything it was much more reasonable to consider a publishing group.


 * It may also be useful to try and come up with a "best of Wikijunior" website.... where it can show some of the outstanding contributions that have been made over the years, but without the cruft that comes from the initial editing process due to the fact this is a Wiki. This is an idea which has been discussed several times over the past several years, but is something that I think is overdue at the moment.  The problem with previous efforts to get this going was mainly a lack of communication with the major stakeholders, and the willingness to follow through.  The wikijunior.org domain is owned by the WMF, and this is perhaps something that can be expanded upon by a dedicated individual who wants to get something going.  I'll spell more out in another section on this talk page later.


 * The main thing is trying to get either or both of these efforts going... and the problems here with Wikijunior really are a microcosm for Wikibooks as a whole as well. I do believe that the K-6 market (more or less the primary target of the initial Wikijunior books) is an easier "market" to crack... particularly if we are not trying to make full textbooks but only supplementary materials.  Genuine textbooks may be a bit tougher nut to crack.


 * The idea of advertising Wikijunior through educational websites is a good idea.... and I've seen Wikijunior mentioned a couple of times. Posting links to well developed Wikibooks titles is IMHO the best sort of "advertising" that can happen, and seems to be where Wikibooks does the best as well.  Of course, some effort still needs to be done with some final "polishing" of the existing Wikijunior titles, and any help along those lines is always appreciated as well.  --Rob Horning 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I support the proposal to establish a "stable" Wikijunior site.


 * A "stable" Wikijunior site would be easier to externally link to. --Jsigler (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: printed books, I'm not as convinced that is critical. Most schools I work with are much more interested in electronic books than print ones. However, if print books are a desirable outcome, there are many grants that would be relatively easy to secure. A more stable site and a strong partnership with the K-12 community would be essential though.
 * Kfasimpaur 16:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC) talk


 * I think having printed books that people can buy inexpensively is a desirable goal, but I think that having stable versions online is a critical next step in the development of Wikijunior. Also, thanks for getting his together, Karen. I've look at several OER sites and they are a little baffling to me. -- xixtas talk 03:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above user; having the books released in printed format isn't neccesarily a critical acheivement. While it would, perhaps, make it easier for schools without internet access to obtain the books, having the books available online will make it easier overall for most schools. Furthermore, if they wish to have a paper copy of the book, they will be responsible for printing costs, which I honestly don't believe will be a serious hardship on the part of a school, considering the fact that 1) wikijunior books aren't especially lengthy and 2) most schools already have equipment and money set aside for printing costs. (such as for worksheets, exams, etc) The only setback is that most schools do not have color printers intended for larger scale printing jobs, so self-printed wikijunior books would end up being black and white, unless the school specifically set aside money to have the books printed up properly.


 * In addition, e-books tend to be easier to search (ctrl+F !), can be viewed at home or at school, and if the books aren't printed out, a lot of trees can be saved ^_^


 * I think that the printed books would be most useful, as I mentioned earlier, to those who do not have computers or internet access, such as poorer schools or schools in third world countries. --Winter (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, I completely take back what I said about the books not being lengthy. I just looked at the Big Cats one and it's just a *little* too much to be printing out... I made my previous comment thinking in terms of the book I last contributed to (Ancient Egypt), which wasn't very long. But still I think that having the books available as e-books is more important. At least for now, while the books aren't as well known. Maybe when the books are more widely used and a demand for them in printed format is generated, then it would be a good idea, but for now, I think that e-books are the way to go. --Winter (talk) 03:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Logos and mascot
I think Wikijunior needs a logo like wikibooks has. Maybe something that looks like a childrens book cover with multicolored text like the KIDS heading on the Wikijunior front page. Colorful pictures are an important in childrens books. Adding covers of books to front page would make it more kid-friendly. Pictures and logo are good for marketing. I'd like to be be able to add a link from my class web site to our Wikijunior book: Famous Inventors using a logo, so it would be nice if there was one. --Jsigler (talk) 03:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Jsigler, it's great to see your enthusiasm for the wikijunior project. As far as a logo goes, there is an ongoing process to select a new logo on meta see here. You  are more than welcome to contribute to this discussion, and your input would be greatly appreciated.  Reece   (Talk)   (Contributions)  21:50, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

There have been several updates to the proposed logos. We are nearing the end of the comment period, and we would love to have as much feedback and suggestions as we can before heading into the final voting phase for a new logo. There is even a proposed new mascot for Wikijunior, named Stiki Jr., a happy soul who loves to read and contribute to wikibooks designed for children. Please leave your comments and let us know what you think. -- Will  scrlt ( Talk ) 22:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

What's going on here?
I'm really interested in putting some significant time into some of the Wikijunior books. My only hesitation is that it seems as though there is very little activity here. What I'm wondering and trying to gain a sense of, is how many people are involved and how much work is being done with these projects. Some of the books need some significant work and refinement that I know I'm not capable of doing alone. I don't really want to put a lot of time into books that will never be finished. Rmawhorter (talk) 01:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What's up?
A few concerns. Where is the vote for the next book? The Wikijunior title page links to a vote dated June 2007 which makes us look like we've stopped updating the website. It also looks a bit bad that the 'Wikijunior News' is dated November 2007 which also gives the impression that nothing is happening around here. In addition I'd like to add my Europe book to the little "bookshelf" image we have at the top of the page? How can I do this quickly without the need for any paint programs?--ЗAНИA talk 21:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

separate project?
It is too different from other WikiBooks content. Wouldn't you request it to be become a separate project? --Eugrus (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Eugrus, the prospect of wikijunior being a seperate project is something that has cropped up before, and there are people arguing both sides of the argument. As i see it, wikijunior's scope is very similar to that of wikibooks as a whole, and as such it belongs here. Yes it has a different audience, but the same criteria apply. More importantly however if wikibooks was moved to its own site, there would be fewer contributors to work on it, and at the minute wikijunior desperately needs more contributors. in the same light people would find it more dificult to locate the site's resources, with them no longer being on wikibooks. I hope this helps explain why thus far wikijunior has remained part of wikibooks. Perhaps in the future if wikijunior grows then a seperate project may be something that is pursued. Reece   (Talk)   (Contributions)  22:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Bookshelf
On the bookshelf, the title of the book "Science Experiments" is misspelled as "Science Eperiments". Can whoever made the title fix that, as I am not experienced with whatever I'd need to do to fix it? Bart133 (talk) 19:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I've removed the image with the typo. xixtas  talk 12:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a note
In case anyone working here was interested in the Schools Wikipedia which we are a few weeks from completing for 2008/9. It is jointly done between the Wikimedia Foundation and a children's charity and is pretty successful in terms of having well over a million readers. It gets given away free to schools all over the place. The content is just Wikipedia content so the language is often complicated but it does have "adult" content removed, get selected around the schools curriculum and get checked for vandalism. AFAIK this is the only such project so perhaps we could do the clean up etc jointly with Wikijunior if there are people with time here? The overlap with non fiction projects for children is pretty striking so I hope no one minds the heads up. --BozMo (talk) 20:55, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion
I'm unsure of where to suggest this, but how about some sort of non-English language book for young children, maybe as part of Wikijunior:Animal Alphabet? I've seen multiple books for young English-speaking children in which the alphabet of a different language is given, along with alphabet-book type pictures and words describing the pictures. Bart133 (talk) 00:57, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm for a book about good books for kids
I would like to see a book containing book reviews. I would like to contribute reviews of books by Holling Clancey Holling like "Paddle to the Sea," the "Swallows and Amazons" books and their video tie-ins, and "Banners at Shenandoah" by the noted historian Bruce Catton. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.16.140.193 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 28 December 2008.

Vandalism Warning
In light of the recent vandalism I thought about putting up a warning on the main page of Wikijunior. This warning should include nothing but commonly known facts about all Wikimedia projects. However, some readers and parents of readers might not be aware of these facts; thus, I think it is in the interest of everyone to state these facts as clearly as possible. My first draft is this:

I think we should put such a warning message on the main page of Wikijunior as soon as possible. --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Since there were no comments or objections, I included the warning on the main page. --Martin Kraus (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Published book LANGUAGES
When I was in 7th grade -- back in the 1950s-- I got very facinated by languages and alphabets. I think juniors who would look at this book need to know that one pronounces some languages reading from RIGHT to left, such as aramic, hebrew, sanscrit, etc., Some of the texts one is asked to pronounced, could be easily transcribed as they are memorizing the text. How about including an appendix showing relations of some languages, such as those derived from Latin, etc. Also an alphabet list, to show the similiar pronunciation of the individual letters, alph*, beth, gam* and so on. Just a thought. A R Taylor (For the academics in the crowd, I have a doctorate in Education, a specialist in Instructional Systems, a Masters in Librarianship, etc.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ARTHUR41 (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2009
 * Good idea. There already is a Wikijunior:Languages book but these suggestions could certainly be included.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:40, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Ladybird alternatives
I was wondering if the intention of Wiki-Junior is to produce the type of books Ladybird did. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Sfan00 IMG. In a nutshell, pretty much. The works produced will ultimately be similar on a number of levels to those publications. However the books created here may not necessarily be on the same topics or based on the same material. Hope this answers your question. Reece   (Talk)   (Contributions)  21:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

separated web
content for kids should be setup on different (sub)domain and no links to any other web that's not safe-for-kids, including any links to wikipedia.org, wikimedia.org, etc.

example good site for kids: kids.yahoo.com ; kids.aol.com

all these to prevent kids accidently open non-kids sites

Dennyhalim (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Three suggestions
Why not change the name of wikijunior to WiJi? It would definitely be more appealing to children. I think it sounds a lot better. Another suggestion would be to ditch the whole wikipedia template, its too boring. make one more appealing to children. My final suggestion is too allow for flash upload; this will allow interactive viewing for children,. Animation explains in a way no textbook can. It would be exclusive to wikipedia.

I agree with the boring layout. Books for children need to be much more visual, rather than text-based. The flash upload would help add point-and-click visual interaction. Animation is one of the biggest strengths of web content over paper content. --Jsigler (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree as well. If you ever watch kids go online, all of the websites they go on are colorful and animated. If we want this site to be child oriented we should take steps to make it more visually pleasing for a younger audience. --Sanitized (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Old books?
I'm not sure if this would be feasible, but could we make articles on old kids books that have expired copyrights? It might be fun to have a bit of a "story" section with classic books. --Sanitized (talk) 17:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

shouldn't those thing appear in wikisource?C933103 (talk) 13:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

What replaced voting?
I'm confused. Somebody show me the light? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 04:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So am I. I think that voting was abandoned because of a lack of input from Wikibookians/Wikijuniorians and maybe a lack of new suggestions.  I never liked the voting process but I'm not sure if anything has replaced it.  Maybe we have abandoned new titles for now in an effort to concentrate on existing books.  Or maybe there is a free-for-all and we can create what we want.  Any takers?--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 23:14, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

why don't set up a simple engish wikijunior?
why don't set up a simple engish wikijunior?C933103 (talk) 13:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikijunior is already supposed to use simple English. --Jomegat (talk) 13:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's also my understanding that Wikimedia/foundation/whatever will not support anymore 'simple' versions. Requests to create a Simple Wikinews were rejected with the statement that it's not a language.  That seems to be the majority opinion in wikiworld (or at least the majority opinion of administrators and people with a lot of time on their hand) although I love the idea of simple versions but that's just me.  I also can't see the point in having multiple language versions of Wiktionary when having one giant combined one which shows translations in each language would be so much better.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 02:29, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe voice your opinion on Wiktionary at Proposals for new projects? -- Adrignola talk contribs 05:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the criteria for opening a new Wikimedia project is that it has to have a valid language code. Not being a real language Simple English has no language code, and thus new projects in that "language" will not be created. But if you're writing books for children, you should be using simple English already. It's not "Simple English", but it is a simplified form of English. Just go ahead and write the book in simple English, or Simple English if that's what you want. It's still English, regardless of the name that's given to it. Reach Out to the Truth (talk) 06:44, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Put a formal end to voting
Since there hasn't been a vote since I left (more than 2 years ago) I think that we should remove all references to voting for titles from Wikijunior. Does anyone have any objections? Should I put this question somewhere else? xixtas talk 00:40, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to be something not to move hastily on. Some sort of standards are needed; if what is now called for isn't being followed, then some combination of adjusting rules and adjusting practices may be called for.  I seem to recall looking into what is proper procedure some time back (probably between one and two years ago) and finding somewhere an invitation to go ahead and create wikijunior books without a vote, but I think it was qualified (how, I'm not sure).  The first thing to do is, presumably, to assemble a list of what is said where about proper procedure.  I might be able to find time to do this sometime in the next week or so...


 * See also the above thread  --Pi zero (talk) 13:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)


 * That sounds fine to me. xixtas  talk 23:12, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree (having spent a few days poking about) that references to voting should be removed from this page. Further action may be called for thereafter, but there's no reason to hold off on removing the confusing and inaccurate claims about a nonexistent voting procedure.
 * My vague recollection of an invitation to go ahead and create WJ books without a vote probably evolved from the following passage, which was written on 11 February 2007 by (wait for it) Xixtas, on Wikijunior, with edit summary "Update to reflect the reality of the current state of the project.":
 * The site is currently working towards completion of several books. There are 10 sanctioned titles under development along with several unsanctioned organic titles.
 * For perspective on the rise and fall of voting and the New Title "Policy", here are a few snapshots from the past:
 * August 2008: Discussion that led to the "not used" notices on Wikijunior:New Title Suggestions and Wikijunior:New Book Collaboration Vote/July 2007 Vote. (The book in question, BTW, was Wikijunior:American Founding Fathers.)
 * November 2005: Announcement of the quarterly voting process.
 * October 2005: Discussion to create the quarterly voting process.
 * 17 August 2005: [ The first revision of Wikijunior:New Title Policy].

As for how to go on from here, a few stray thoughts: --Pi zero (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There do need to be some sort of standards for the placement of titles on the main page. It's not entirely clear to me how the addition is now handled, and I suspect that it isn't.
 * Any sort of consensus process for adding titles to the list(s) here should take place somewhere that a fair number of people will actually have on their watchlists; one can't build very much consensus by talking to oneself in an empty room. The two possible venues that come to mind are this page &mdash; but I'm not sure there are enough regulars here, in the sense of people who would not only notice a question here, but think of it as being addressed to them &mdash; or Reading room/General.


 * Let's see if there are any other comments. Thanks for the research. A few of those I hadn't read, and even the stuff I wrote I only vaguely recall. :) xixtas  talk 04:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Since darklama has now tagged Wikijunior:New Title Policy as obsolete, I've [ commented out] the whole section. If and when we choose something to replace it with, its place will be there waiting.  --Pi zero (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the rest of the references to voting on the front page. I also changed the book collaboration template to remove references to voting. I think this is a really good step forward. xixtas  talk 02:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple English Wikibooks merger
Hey gang,

While I'm sure you all noticed the discussion in the reading room, I wanted to draw to your attention a comment I made at Wikibooks talk:Simple English merger. Essentially, the simplified English seems to have simplified the content as well to the point that it would fit quite well into the upper Wikijunior age range. Please join the discussion and share your views. --Swift (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. xixtas  talk 02:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Reviewed Version Notice
Does anyone object to moving the notice about the reviewed version to the bottom of the page? -- xixtas talk 04:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't. I guess it's been there long enough for regular readers who might be surprised by the change. --Swift (talk) 10:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go ahead! QU TalkQu 11:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Done -- xixtas  talk 04:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Facelift
I just gave the front page a bit of a [ face-lift]. For those concerned: I figured I'd comment on my changes here:

I replaced the picture which I felt was perhaps a bit bland. Wikijunior wants to be engaging so I chose a picture of a child immersed in a colourful pop-up book. It could really use some cropping, though.

I lightened the colours considerably. If we want to use strong colours, I suggest we widen the borders, but leave the background intact. I found the dark-blue in particular hard to read on.

I merged a couple of the table cells/boxes (the yellow and the orange). I felt they were on a similar enough of a topic: How to contribute to or discuss content. That left the featured books in a wide box below. I'm not too happy with the layout and I guess we could look at how to format the templates without messing up other pages.

Criticism welcome. --Swift (talk) 01:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I like the new layout.


 * I do have a couple of concerns about the new picture. I find it visually difficult to parse.  Some of that would be alleviated by cropping; but some of it is cluttered central background, and some of it is that, even at full size, the fact that it's a pop-up book doesn't... leap out at you.  The old picture was visually simple, so that you knew instantly what you were looking at.  My other concern is that, once one does parse the new picture, the pop-up book suggests a more elementary level than most of the books here aspire to.  --Pi zero (talk) 02:56, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm game for a makeover. One thing right off the bat, I don't care for the new picture at all. IMO a pop up book sends the wrong message. But I'm inclined to leave it until we find something better. I darkened the background colors because the very light colors seem very bland to me. I believe they are still lighter than before. I believe wide borders are generally poor information design. I moved the search box above the titles because it didn't work for me sandwiched between the text talking about the titles and the links to them. -- xixtas  talk 03:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * (Wow Commons is a trackless jungle.) One image I've stumbled across is this 1905 illustration for A Child's Garden of Verses.  (I also tried out File:Child with red hair reading.jpeg, but it was much less engaging.)  150px seemed to me to be about the right size.


 * --Pi zero (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree that the current picture is nowhere near optimal, but I prefer it over the old one and the one above because it makes it clear that these are not novels. Maybe I'm being silly and even encouraging a stereotype that educational books cannot be pure text or read in the sofa. What I do like about the current picture is that the boy is totally immersed in the book (much like the girl in the picture above). If you look more closely, you see that it's a pop-up book, but also that he actually seems to be reading &mdash; not just being amused by the figures. A picture that shows children (preferably in the upper age-range) dug into obviously educational material is what I went looking for at commons. A picture of students discussing a book would also fit well into the ideas of constructivism and social constructivism.
 * Still, I'm not quite satisfied with the picture I chose. In the end the picture will hardly make or break the project. We could even play around with several; leaving them up for a while and seeing how we like it. --Swift (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikijunior is not about novels, but neither is it about pop-up books, which are more toys than books. -- xixtas  talk 14:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I get the opposite impression from Swift about these pictures: the pop-up book is the only one that really doesn't look educational to me. The one above has a plain cover (speaking of stereotypes); note that the Wikibook that uses it is Social and Cultural Foundations of American Education.  BTW, I almost always read educational books on the sofa :-).  --Pi zero (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I've seen good educational books that use pop-ups (and many others that use "interactive" features). That said, I fully understand what people may have against having one on the front cover and won't be the slightest bit upset if anyone changes it. Happy hunting. --Swift (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've put up the Wilcox picture, to give it a try and see how it wears. --Pi zero (talk) 16:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Style guide
Knowing there was some sort of WJ style guide (that I hadn't looked at in ages) and wanting to consult it, but not being sure exactly what it was called (and being lazy, of course), I went to the WJ main page and... discovered there wasn't any link to it there. So I've added one, and while I was at it I also created a shortcut, WJ:SG. --Pi zero (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

New name
I think that "Wikijunior" is a bit strange, like the i and the j next to each other. I would like to call the page "WikiJunior". Is that possible?

Dennyboy1997 (talk) 11:43, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is inconsistent with the site's name. Wikibooks rather than WikiBooks. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:01, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior reviewed in news article
An article on Examiner.com has portrayed the Wikijunior project in a rather negative light. -- 68.87.42.110 (talk) 13:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Move to "Wikijunior:Wikijunior"?
Can we move this to the Wikijunior namespace instead? Wikijunior should not belong in the mainspace, as it is not necessarily a wikibook in itself. I don't think there are technical restrictions to this, since Wiktionary was able to hide its main page in the Wiktionary-space as well. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * http://wikijunior.org directs to this location. – Adrignola talk 13:33, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikijunior logo
Please help vote on the Wikijunior logo --Turn685 (discuss • contribs) 21:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest these URLs (which keep secure-server users on the secure server):
 * Note that Turn685 and I are the most recent users to post on that talk page. (I suggested making it an unofficial variant of the Wikibooks logo and moving the discussion here.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Turn685 and I are the most recent users to post on that talk page. (I suggested making it an unofficial variant of the Wikibooks logo and moving the discussion here.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note that Turn685 and I are the most recent users to post on that talk page. (I suggested making it an unofficial variant of the Wikibooks logo and moving the discussion here.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikijunior: World Heritage Sites
I have started developing a new Wikijunior title called World Heritage Sites. The idea is to present as many UNESCO sites as possible, in a simple manner with images, maps and brief details. There are over 900 sites in the world so we can only cover some of these but I'd like to have a fair amount from each continent and different countries rather than just concentrate on North America and Europe. The book is currently in my user space but I will move it across to Wikijunior after a few more pages have been started. --ЗAНИA talk 14:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Great to see another title being developed!


 * Some considerations.
 * All Wikijunior books should be developed in  space.
 * Wikikjunior space is subject to flaggedrevs, and is configured (by admins) to show the latest sighted version by default instead of the current draft, to protect the young Wikijunior audience against malicious vandalism. That can't be done on pages in user space, so we shouldn't be linking pages in user space as if they were part of Wikijunior.  So, you should move the pages to Wikijunior space and develop them there; some Wikijunior pages books are very underdeveloped.
 * User space isn't fully in the public jurisdiction, so user pages shouldn't be presented as if they were part of the general wiki (for anyone to edit).
 * Only relatively complete books are listed on the Wikijunior main page. Once the pages have been moved to Wikijunior space, list the book at WJ:All Books.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've since moved the book to WJ space. It would seem that Wikijunior space isn't automatically subject to flaggedrevs - I had to manually set each of the pages myself (I'm an admin) so that only reviewed edits were visible (or maybe that's because I started the book in my user space and later moved it to WJ?).  Since when have only relatively complete books been listed on the WJ main page?--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 15:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * It's been that way as long as I've known it. We want to showcase the best of Wikijunior, and that doesn't include incomplete books. – Adrignola discuss 16:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Re reconfig. Yes, we have to do each page manually.  Back when we changed the flaggedrevs settings so the default is to show the current draft, we (mostly Adrignola and somewhat I) manually reconfigured every Wikijunior page (and Recent Runes, I think, later generated a list of all the Wikijunior pages we'd missed, which we then cleaned up &mdash; iirc there were one or two dozen of them).  Since then, we try to monitor Wikijunior page creations, moves into Wikijunior space, and presumably likewise for templates with "Wikijunior" in their names, to catch and reconfigure pages as they arise.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Re where to list. It's been this way as long as I've known it, too.  Inspecting the current state of the book more closely, I concur with Xania's rating of it as "25%" &mdash; because "00%" would not acknowledge the infrastructural work that's been done.  A book with lots of pages might warrant listing on the main page when it's got a bunch of pages that are moderately developed, even though the whole is still at 25% (as is the case with WJ:The Elements); but that doesn't apply here.  My original skepticism about main-page listing was based on Xania's own remarks about level of completion; now that I've assessed it for myself, I'm willing to take a more definite stance: this isn't ready for main-page listing.  (Note, though, that WJ:All Books is meant to include all books, regardless of whether or not they're listed on the main page.)  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:31, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Wikikids/Vikidia
May I tell you about Vikidia (Vikidia).

I wonder if there will be once an equivalent in english. You can have a look at this discussion : Wikikids/Vikidia

The idea has been discussed quite a long time ago here for example.

On Vikidia in french, we currently have a guestbook open, and the comments left on it are quite encouraging. Children say they appreciate the article to be more readable for them than on Wikipedia, their main reserve is just that some article are not developped enought, or that there isn't articles on every subject they would like to know about...

We have yet a bit more than 10000 articles, and about 215 000 unique visitors a month.

Wheras Wikijunior is wikibooks project, Vikidia is a Wikipedia-like project, which makes possible several feature of Wikipedia. For example wikilinks to "Aluminum" is just Aluminum instead of Wikijunior The Elements/Aluminum. And it makes it easy to create another page about related topics.

Another point is that Vikidia let children be involved in building the content, and does not "only" aim to produce and offer content for children, which let them be active with knowledge for pedagogical interest. (See this article : http://edutechwiki.unige.ch/en/Writing-to-learn)

Actually, simple english Wikipedia also exist (which has no equivalent in other language) but it may be possible reuse/import large part of content both from simple wp and Wikijunior to launch such a wiki.

What dio you think about that ? Astirmays (discuss • contribs) 22:26, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Any such project probably wouldn't be run by the Wikimedia Foundation. It's become apparent that no new projects (other than new language editions of existing projects) will be entertained. – Adrignola discuss 04:10, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * You may be right, unless there is a big policy change in the WMF. Still there is these recommendation : meta:2010 Wikimedia Study of Controversial Content: Part Two to consider a wiki aimed at children.
 * Nevertheless, if some people are motivated for such a project, it dosen't have to be a Wikimedia Foundation project. Astirmays (discuss • contribs) 08:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
 * We have now launched (February 2014) Vikidia in English, see Vikidia in English opens today, let’s build a children wiki encyclopedia! on blog.wikimedia.fr :-) Astirmays (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the project. I like the idea although it's more of a Wikipedia for kids than a Wikijunior.  It's also good that it's non-commercial and hosted outside of the USA (which is the main problem with Wikimedia).--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_the_Isle_of_Mann.svg|15px]]talk 21:13, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Xania, most user presently write article from scratch (sometimes stubs, sometimes more developed ones) yet I have imported and rework quite a few one both from simple.wikipedia.org and from Wikijunior. See my user page there, where I have listed them. It's still some work, you can't reasonably import hundreds of articles just like that, yet I guess it makes some good and significant content when you choose it and rework it with care (images, some cuts, sometimes picking up some part of the simple English Wikipedia article to complete one that you have just imported from Wikijunior, links...) Astirmays (discuss • contribs) 18:18, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Criteria for listing on this page
What are the criteria for listing a book on this page? Is it just finished books? Just featured books? Some of the books linked to, such as Wikijunior:South America, are neither. And there are some finished books (e.g. Wikijunior:Shapes) that are finished but not listed here. Liam987 (t) 15:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


 * In the early days, I think, the idea was that a book should reach 100% to be listed. There's even voting, in the talk archives, on allowing a book to be listed even though it's a bit less than 100%.  With fewer folks around, such discipline has weakened.  Clearly, with a link to another page with other books under development, the least developed books aren't meant to be on the main page.  When I first came to Wikijunior, I figured anything at least 75% complete was okay to list but we ought to reserve the visible "bookshelf" for ones that were 100%.  Only then, as I recall, somebody went to all the trouble of creating a "book" image for the shelf for a book that wasn't 100% &mdash; and I sure didn't want to spoil their fun and bit of pride at creating the image.  So practice is a bit uneven.


 * A while back, when I set up the current subject-pages system to automatically track books in subsetions, someone suggested it would be great if we could arrange these listings on the main page to be generated automatically; but it's not yet clear how to arrange that. I do have some ideas, but they'd likely need to wait till after I'm out from under the worst of my "current" software development project for wikis (which has already been going on for several years now).  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Split off from Wikibooks?
As a retired teacher, I am interested in creating content for children. If we can split Wikijunior off from Wikibooks, and make it a separate searchable, child-oriented space, I would be willing to make a substantial donation, and I would be very keen on creating content for it. Here is a prototype child-oriented encyclopaedia I have been working on. https://wikids.wikispaces.com/Index+1 Barry Desborough (discuss • contribs) 13:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Allow me to offer some perspective on this, and ask you a question.
 * In a very real sense, Wikijunior is already separate from the rest of Wikibooks.
 * Wikijunior benefits from the attention of administrators of the larger Wikibooks collection, yes, which is good because finding enough administrators, with enough understanding, for a small project is a serious challenge. In a sense, Wikibooks as a whole is a collection of thousands of really tiny projects (individual books) that have all banded together to share a common supporting administrative infrastructure.
 * We administer our Wikijunior space differently than the rest of Wikibooks: When an edit is made here, it isn't visible to ordinary readers until it is approved by an authorized Wikibookian.  We went to a lot of trouble, some years back, to arrange things this way so that Wikijunior would be safer for kids to read; kids reading it have a line of protection between them and some vandal coming along and adding offensive content to Wikijunior pages, because the offensive content wouldn't be instantly visible.
 * Wikijunior was created, years back, as a concept that wasn't specific to any particular sister, because somebody made a massive donation to the Wikimedia Foundation (I think it was about a million dollars, though that might be my memory playing tricks on me). And it's not at all clear that the Foundation actually used all that money in a way that was specifically directed toward Wikijunior; but we did create a subspace on Wikibooks for books directed specifically at children, and it is still here.
 * So, with all this in mind, my question is this: Why do you think Wikijunior would be better off if it were administratively more separate from Wikibooks?  Since, to me, it seems as if Wikijunior right now has the best of both worlds, the benefits of attention from administrators who understand about administering books, together with the benefits of special treatment for the protection of kids reading it.  I'm not sure why you feel it wouldn't be worth contributing unless Wikijunior were further separated, and I'm honestly concerned that it wouldn't work as well as the current arrangement.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I would have replied earlier had I had a notification. I must not have set it correctly.
 * The concern I have is that Wikijunior, within Wikibooks, is not a self-contained child-oriented "space". A basic improvement could be made by having the search function, in all Wikijunior pages, search only Wikijunior pages, rather than all of the Wikibooks pages, which include content at an adult level. The other concern I have is that, being under the Wikibooks umbrella, there is an apparent bias towards book-like presentation and organization. To be immediate, and child-oriented, I would like to see short simple one-screen pages with minimal distractions, designed for online access - the sort of pages that independent students can easily gain from, and that can also be used by teachers for their presentations. I have prototyped this sort of content for illustration purposes. Unfortunately, I have had to abandon it's latest, more up-to-date incarnation as a paid-for Wikispaces plan, due to lack of adequate support. Here is the previous version again, @ http://wikids.wikispaces.com/Index+1
 * See also my old proposal @ https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Barry_Desborough/WikijuniorOnline
 * Changing the search function would be, to me, the most important change. I thought that the cleanest way to do this would be for Wikijunior to become a separate searchable space. It would not mean that the administration and oversight procedures would need to change. --Barry Desborough (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Localizing the search sounds doable, though at this moment I only have guesses at how. It sounds like a useful thing to do.  In the same spirit we may wish to make other customizations of the left-hand menu bar; it's possible the two may be technically related, but both are outside what I've tied to do in the past. I have doubts, off hand, about departing from the book concept, but I haven't had a chance to look at that carefully; in any case, my instinct is to deal with the search issue, and perhaps navbar, first before taking on further issues.  I'll start a section at the reading room about search/navbar, and hopefully I'll have a chance in the next few days to make some independent inquiries.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Non-fiction books only?
Why not also starting a collection of (short) stories for kids? --ZxxZxxZ (discuss • contribs) 17:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that a collection of fables would be a great start. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:58, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This would need to be thought through carefully. Quoting What is Wikijunior:
 * The aim of Wikijunior is to produce non-fiction books for children from birth to age twelve. These books could take the form of macropedias, textbooks, or primers.
 * --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 22:30, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * True but I think it's easy to split the difference with children's books and have Jane and Johnny Go to the Zoo as a framing device to talk about animals. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That would be a long way outside the parameters of what we've ever done, afaik. I think, if we're going to innovate some new style of Wikijunior book, we should be able to accomplish our ends with some new style that doesn't involve full-out fiction.  Fiction is clearly a policy violation, with imo good reasons for the policy; and "ignoring" rules is something to do when it's going to be forgiven because it's obviously necessary to a natural goal.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, it is and it isn't. For instance, Kiki is the "mascot" here and the idea was that she would basically do just that: have adventures and explain/learn things along the way. Plus, there have only been 20 books in 13 years, so there's not much of any precedent, really. I agree that a completely fictional story would probably be outside the scope but children's books frequently have fictional narratives for real-world facts. I don't know that they are more or less effective (I am inclined to say more) but either way, it's hardly unprecedented amongst children's non-fiction. In point of fact, I would wager that a majority of kids' books use devices like that. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:43, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Tbh, that seems an awfully cavalier dismissal of a lot of worthy volunteer work on Wikijunior. It seems too early in this discussion for me to start listing reasons in support of a major policy like "no fiction"; even on Wikipedia where they have an IAR policy, one doesn't do stuff like that casually, really there needs to be an obvious compelling reason so that the exception feels completely natural (I liked the way iirc it used to be put at WP:ZEN: "The IAR that is noticed is not the true IAR"). I'm not at all convinced we can't, with a bit of thought, come up with viable alternatives to fictional frame stories.  It's rather hard to do in the abstract, though.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 05:25, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you encountered a style of children's educational book that has an illustrated narrator but not a frame story? I'm wondering if we could make something of that.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 07:23, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I think we both respect one another and have encountered one another many times across these projects, so I take your criticism carefully and as intended but I also think you are assuming bad faith on my part: Wikijunior has a very small body of work (very small) so that means that it is very easy to change course. That's not a dismissal but a statement of fact. I care about children's education or else I wouldn't be on this page but I lack 1.) time and 2.) expertise so I am willing to admit that there is a lot I don't know and I definitely value the effort that others have put in that I haven't. The entire purpose of me posting here is to encourage the OP to do work here and I think you can respect that as well. I don't really see the value of a very minimal narrator without a framing narrative but it is probably very common with licensed media characters who will already be recognizable to children--you don't have to introduce who they are to the kids and going to the effort of writing a story is simply superfluous. So tack on an image of Spider-Man or a Teletubby next to the facts you want and you have an instant classic. Since that's not really an option for us (Sherlock Holmes maybe? Do kids care about Victorian detectives...?) then I think that a proper framing like, "Jane and Johnny Visit Africa" is a totally legit way of introducing topics and one which has at the very least been floated here. In fact, Kiki was supposed to narrate Wikijunior:Solar System but no one actually did the work 12 years ago. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:32, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * (I started to make an aside remark here about good/bad faith, assumptions, and whatnot &mdash; but, on reflection, let's try just not going there. It might work.)

I agree there hasn't been a huge and sustained blossoming of output on Wikijunior. So, why is that; and where does the question of fiction fit into the picture? I'll take a stab at some of that, out of my own perceptions of the project over the years. Btw, I've got someone here (sitting nearby as I write this) saying positive things about the idea of a book of traditional fables; one could have, they note, a section about What is a fable?, and then dive into the collection, and it would perhaps not be so very different after all than a book about religions. I'm not sure yet what I think about the idea, but it seemed worth sharing as a possible approach to consider. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * First, Wikijunior is part of Wikibooks, and I see two main factors depressing Wikibooks as a whole over the years. The non-Wikipedia sisters, as you may have noticed, have received large-scale, long-term neglect and discouragement from the Foundation and significant segments of the Wikipedia community over the years. Years of observation have increased my estimate of that factor.  Back when the collection feature was rolled out, and a veteran Wikibookian suggested that the use of the word "book" in relation to it might have been chosen in a deliberate attempt to undermine Wikibooks, I though that sounded paranoid; but with additional years behind me I now think it sounds like a reasonable suspicion. The other factor I see is bigger, and may be something that we can do something about.  Writing books is hard.  I don't think the early optimists here appreciated how hard it is.  The problem is organization, structure.  Structure is what makes a book different from a haphazard collection of pages.  It also isn't dispensible, btw; it is one of the things that makes books worth writing.  Choosing structure for a book is a special task for which we provide no help I'm aware of; I don't think we even know how it's done, as all these years we've been failing to ask the question.  There's also the problem that people have to be able to come to a book later, in whatever state of completion or incompletion it is, and know what the structure is and how to contribute.  Really each book is a specialized microproject; it's as if Wikibooks were not one project but thousands of microprojects that have banded together to share some common administrative infrastructure, most of those microprojects so tiny they make Wikinews look huge; it's common to have an average over time of less than one active contributor on a book &mdash; yet progress can still be made on such a book over time, if it's made easy enough for someone coming to it to understand what to do and do it.  I'm hoping this can be an excellent application for crowdsourced semi-automation based on the dialog tools I'm developing for Wikinews (where basic production is even more daunting than here, so naturally it's the place that would first motivate such tools). A miscellaneous anecdote in this regard:  Some years ago I looked into Wikijunior's book about understanding different religions, and discovered there had been multiple efforts, all of which had fallen into non-activity.  I found that the primary one suffered from a remarkable defect:  the standard set of questions, to be used as the outline for each page, was poorly chosen, so that the only religion for which all the questions were really well suited was Christianity.  It seems a likely mistake based on simple shortfall of experience.  The unfortunately chosen set of questions meant that there just wasn't any way to contribute usefully to any page that wasn't about Christianity.  I merged all the books into one and redesigned the set of questions, and particularly worked on the page on atheism, which should be an exercise in generality for the new set of questions (as well as one I know something about).  And since I did that, the book hasn't exploded with activity but it does get some; people come along and find they are able to contribute, which makes me feel my contribution was successful. Another case:  I'd always thought Wikijunior:The Elements should be a natural for steady progress, if someone wanted to try, and a few months(?) ago I tried to do so &mdash; and immediately hit something of a brick wall because there turned out to be some specialized images that were supposed to be provided on each element page but only existed for a handful of elements that already had pages.  I've been wondering if there's a way to generate the requisite visuals using wiki markup, though I haven't had time yet to look into it.  I do see wiki markup as key to the whole wiki enterprise; it's the thing that brings the whole endeavor, from beginning to end, within reach of the ordinary contributors who, to my mind, are the whole point.
 * A flaw, perhaps, in the early years of Wikijunior was that it wasn't altogether a "kid-safe" place. I mean, when every change made by anyone is instantly visible to the kids, that offers scope for vandals.  That's why, years ago by now, I proposed and the community agreed that content pages on Wikijunior should show by default the most recent sighted version rather than the most recent version.  We had, as I recall, had a vandal within a few months before that, who had gone around putting obscene images all over the place; I wanted us to make sure that could not be successfully done on Wikijunior.  I'd like to think that now that we have this simple protection in place that should allow Wikijunior to feel safer.  We do keep more up-to-date with reviewing edits to Wikijunior than elsewhere on the site where a bit of backlog is merely administrative.
 * About fiction. Two considerations come to mind.  Neither of them would necessarily rule it out altogether for Wikijunior, but both seem worth keeping in mind.  First, while it is sometimes quite natural to be flexible on Wikijunior about some of the general rules of Wikibooks, note that Wikibooks doesn't allow original research, let alone fiction.  That's one point.  The second point seems to me to apply just as much to Wikijunior as to Wikibooks as a whole:  crowdsourced fiction is more difficult than anything we do here.  Most of the crowdsourced fiction efforts I've heard of failed miserably.  Apparently plot is not something that takes well to crowdsourcing.  As a practical matter in this context, the danger would be that it's already extraordinarily difficult to choose a successful book structure that encourages on-going contribution when the stuff to be contributed is objective facts, with limited scope for disagreements about basically what goes in.  Introducing room to make stuff up, even if in the service of educating on a theme, could easily become too unstructured to make contribution easy and linearly progressing forward toward completion.  There's also a possible meta-level interest here in presenting non-fiction.  There is, truthfully, too much making-things-up in the world.  If we can make non-fiction fun for kids, all the better.
 * The book-of-fables idea continues to interest me. I'm wondering how we would define its scope.  That is, which fables would we include?  It seems like some fables are more adult than others; one that I had occasion to reference a couple of days ago, for example, is The Scorpion and the Frog, which as Wikipedia rather aptly puts it is kind of dark.  Perhaps we would have a collection with different groupings?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * You're right that "Introducing room to make stuff up, even if in the service of educating on a theme, could easily become too unstructured to make contribution easy"; but on the other hand, personally the most valuable books I read as a kid was, beside Arcady Leokum's Tell Me Why, a collection of classical stories aimed to teach virtues and values to kids. Makeing such book may be more difficult, but my point is it is very valuable, so it may be worth it. Actually, I would say it's not as more difficult as you probably initially thought. We would use traditional stories, it's not original research. We can categorize stories, based on their point, and their origin, and maybe even the age of the audience! --ZxxZxxZ (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, a collection of traditional fables would be something like that, and could be made to feel pretty natural on Wikijunior. This would work especially well if we had some discussion before and/or after each fable, about what it means (perhaps before about the history of the story and after about what it means?); that would then make it a collection of annotated texts, which are already explicitly allowed under Wikibooks policy. Btw,  I first learned about the five Ws and an H &mdash; keeping in mind how heavily involved I am now with Wikinews &mdash; from some children's fiction (I think it may have been The Mad Scientists' Club).  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I haven't forgotten you as well. I agree that if we collect some fables, they should be worldwide. I would want a book like that just for my own personal benefit! —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * &lt;nods&gt; If we set it up well enough &mdash; which, as I say, is crucial to the long-term success of a collaborative book &mdash; it could be a pretty awesome children's book :-D. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We still need to work out the inclusion critiera, though. For example, there are "fables", and then there are "fairy tales".  The Brothers Grimm compiled more than 200 stories, and some of the ones that are classics now were much darker in the originals (do you recall what happened to Cinderella's step-sisters' feet)?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 17:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I say the more, the merrier: throw them all in. Fables and fairy tales are short, so we can have dozens and dozens that make one long book which is still digestible by a kid. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Here's an opportunity to be more specific, then. Wikipedia notes there are lots of versions of Cinderella.  In the Brothers Grimm version, the step-sisters in order to fit into the slipper cut off parts of their feet, and were crippled for life.  How would you recommend we handle a story like that?  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 18:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * We could have multiple versions? A choose-your-own adventure style? I would recommend against depicting gruesome things but I'm willing to offer up some of the more nasty parts in text--children have been reading these cautionary tales for centuries. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I have created Wikijunior:Stories/The Stonecutter as an example. BTW I just notced the interface is not kid-friendly at all. I expect it to be much more colorful, with much of the page dedicated to a few, important links. Warm colors are preferred for children. --ZxxZxxZ (discuss • contribs) 15:40, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean something like this. --ZxxZxxZ (discuss • contribs) 15:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nice. I looked thru Commons and couldn't find any masonry examples from East Asia to add as a picture, tho. Unfortunate. If you want to change the colors on the page, that can be done via CSS. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

A CC kids book on math
See here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/419899136/funville-adventures-a-math-inspired-childrens-book —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:29, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

Printing
How do I print these books for children? I would be glad to have a PDF which I can bind. --Gryllida 01:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Several have PDF versions (e.g. Wikijunior:Biology and File:Wikijunior-Biology.pdf). —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Yours --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 10:15, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I made the PDF version of the Biology Book. The software I wrote for that purpose is freely available.
 * http://mediawiki2latex.wmflabs.org/
 * The drawback is that its layout is done with LaTeX, which is quite academic style and likely not ideal for children.
 * The web page I linked to above can only handle small books. But there an instruction to install the software locally and process books of arbitrary size:
 * https://de.wikibooks.org/wiki/Benutzer:Dirk_Huenniger/wb2pdf
 * Finally you can just ask me to create the pdf for the book you need and I will give it a try.

PDF Export. Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 18:04, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

LaTeX is amazing. I think the PDF version of the Biology wikibook is heaps better than the MediaWiki's built-in 'PDF Export' which we see in the sidebar. Thank you!

Regarding the grouping of text, images, and reading level -- I was expecting something comparable to this - some wonderful people here in Australia have children starting school, and the first three years they use such books with increasing complexity of the text. I don't know where they take the text for them, but I guess we can just create texts from our heads like everywhere else. It could be a fable text but at first the texts are a lot simpler.

For example at the first year the purpose of the text is having the child remember camera words. The book can have "I have a yellow dog. Every morning I take it for a walk" on the first two pages, and "I have a white cat. Every morning I feed it with milk" on the next ones, and "I have a green parrot. Every evening I take it to the kitchen" on next two pages and that's it. The illustrations make the book engaging and interesting to follow.

The Biology book you linked is for children aged perhaps eight or ten. --Gryllida 19:19, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

I looked which PDFs are here on Wikibooks and excluded pre-reader books

List of Wikijunior Books with PDF version made with LaTeX:


 * Wikijunior:Biology
 * Wikijunior:Kings and Queens of England
 * Wikijunior:Ancient Civilizations

List of Wikijunior Books with PDF version made without LaTeX:


 * Wikijunior:Big Cats
 * Wikijunior:Solar System
 * Wikijunior:Languages
 * Wikijunior:Europe
 * Geometry for Elementary School

--Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 15:31, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi I made a list of PDFs above. If you need a PDF for book not in the list just let me know.--Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 15:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess files in .pdf or .latex format without any corresponding wiki page for them are OK here? How do I upload a latex source if it has images with it, are zip files uploads allowed? Gryllida 04:11, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I am not sure but a least on the german wikibooks they need a wiki source text for every pdf. Upload of zip files is disabled. But you can use a tool like pdftk to attach a zip file to a pdf file and upload the pdf file. Yours --Dirk Hünniger (discuss • contribs) 06:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility issues on the main Wikijunior page
I just checked on a color contrast checker to see whether the colors used in the word 'KIDS' against some ochre background were high-contrast. With the exception of the blue used, all these colors failed the WCAG AA/AAA standards for normal text (if you don't believe me, see for yourself). Please fix this problem ASAP by changing those colors to high-contrast ones (an example:  K I D S ). --69.160.29.51 (discuss) 10:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Love Wikijunior
Good work!!!. More books adapted by age. Where can one propose a new book (an perhaps, for a new age?).--BoldLuis (discuss • contribs) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a new book in mind? --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is a good place. What were you thinking about? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * . You good people. I think geometry (how to calculate surfaces and volumes for the basic figures) is very complicated in Wikipedia. Doctoral thesis level, not level for children, with visual information in a table to remember and with the post important parameters for the calculation of every figure in a draw ( for example, the radius in the circle and so on). Visual Geometry Tables, with basic formulas for surfaces and volumes and their draws.. It would be great, educative and very useful for children!!!. And I am recommending Wikichildren a lot to parents for their children.BoldLuis (discuss • contribs) 01:17, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that understanding math articles on Wikipedia is difficult and I also agree that Pi zero is a good guy. I've been a math tutor on and off for the past 20 years, so having very accessible, free textbooks in math would be a nice addition to this site. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:33, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a good idea to me, too. You may also be interested to look over the general-Wikibooks Geometry shelf, where I see one of those books claims to be (half-finished) on elementary-school-level geometry. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:21, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am going to read them and see if there are practical tables there (by age, ie teens, 13-14 years old children). I am going to give the results there. Perhaps a skeleton table (to fill with easy formulas and graphics). We are going to use Inkscape or similar for SVG (vectors). Thank you a lot.--BoldLuis (discuss • contribs) 09:26, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

How about a book about how to learn karate?🌈⭐♥️♥️😘 Audrey Hepburn.love (discuss • contribs) 22:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that would totally fit our scope. Do you have any ability to start or add to it? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:31, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin I was hoping you guys could add it Audrey Hepburn.love (discuss • contribs) 22:34, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Asia
On my midst of finding motivation/seeking more innovative ways to present Wikijunior:Asia in a more children-friendly way, I stumbled upon this page and I can see that this book has already been listed under "Geography". Why is that? Is this book already a featured book? What discussion concluded that this unfinished wikijunior page should be listed here for many curious viewers to see? Surely I don't think its a big deal, but it definitely has made me curious: What are the requirements for a Wikijunior book to appear on this page? —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 17:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Afaik there are no official criteria. I probably wouldn't list anything here till it was considered either 100% or, at least, 75% anyway, but over the years I have hesitated to actively object when someone has chosen to list a book before that. If we can agree on a consistent criterion (or if it turns out there was one, back in the day, and we can unearth it), all the better. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 01:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur. Although it's nice to see a work that I've contributed to extensively be put up for "public" display, I can't deny that Wikijunior:Asia is not even 50% complete IMHO. Hopefully once I get a good amount of time, possibly the weekend, I can raise this concern at probably PROPOSALS for more publicity. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 01:56, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In fact, WJ:Asia is listed at WJ:All Books as 75%, although it lists itself as only 50% (and is therefore listed that way in the DPLs at Shelf:Wikijunior). --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 03:31, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems completion is a very opinionated segment of presenting a book. I'm not totally sure how to approach this topic. I personally do not believe that WJ:Asia is 50%, but getting into an argument/potential edit war over something insignificant is not the best of time spent. Maybe this can model in for other potential conflicts (even though I don't perceive this to be an issue among other users, but better "safe then sorry")? A very creative criteria will be need to be agreed upon. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 03:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm, yeah. One can see how it'd be possible to imagine possible conflicts where no actual conflicts exist, and introduce bureaucracy to avoid the imagined conflicts.  Argh.  I'll let this simmer in the back of my mind for a while, and see if anything occurs to me. --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to have to let this one "go", too. Upon further pondering it's a very opinionated and insignificant matter. Maybe if something pops up or another user chimes in, then we can continue this matter here. —Atcovi (Talk - Contribs) 16:06, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Why?
Why is the main page of Wikijunior not full-protected so only admins can edit it. If I wanted to,(I don't), I, or any confirmed user could add offensive language to the page. T. Gregtregretgtr (discuss • contribs) 17:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)


 * "Flagged Revisions" are enabled on wikibooks. See Help:Tracking changes. But maybe you knew that already. You mention "confirmed user". D'you mean "reviewer"? The criteria for getting "Reviewer" permission (Reviewers) seems quite strict though. It would be pretty weird for a user to make all of those good edits, and then suddenly add offensive language here.
 * Not impossible, mind you. So if it did happen I guess we fall back to usual "soft security" wiki mechanisms as used on wikipedia i.e we're reliant on a quick response from the community. And it's counter-intuitive how effective that is! Also I believe some folks would spot offensive edits very quickly using automated monitoring tools.
 * -- Harry Wood (discuss • contribs) 10:54, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Revert
Thank you for telling me that but you should just know that that was my first edit so you do not like then why did you look at it. ?? Harmony msutu (discuss • contribs) 08:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * we dont have fictional works here. Your edits must be viewed to either accept or revert them. We usually revert edits like those that add messages on pages like "This is very impressive". Use the talk page instead if you want to give an editor(s) praise on their work. 07:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

?
what do you think can this sinitnica( language ukranian) be printed somewhere?

WCG ∈ WWW hives, where network 🐝, bring Nectar.

. Другий хрущ (discuss • contribs)