User talk:Adrignola/2011/02

Quenya to Neo-Quenya
May I ask why you moved a complete wikibook because of a question asked 3 years ago and to which no-one responded favourably? Furthermore I removed the banner about "the no longer featured" because it isn't necessary to remind users of something from years ago. User:Dirk math (discuss • contribs) 07:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
 *  Swift is a respected member of the Wikibooks community. As no one has opposed the proposition that the book is related to Neo-Quenya, I would have moved the book too. However, as you are the creator of the book and are disputing the move, I shall move it back in a jiffy.
 * You also mentioned the no longer featured banner. While it may not be significant to you that a book was demoted from featured status years ago, it may to some others and in any case I don't think it's common to remove the banner. I have undone your edit, but you may start a discussion concerning such banners in the reading rooms (or any other place) if you wish. Kayau 08:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The tag is merely informative and it's use is limited in time. I would substitute the tag by a post in the book's talk page, similar to what we do with surviving a RfD, in fact tagging the work with that tag without going deeply into why it was added in the talk page is not very useful, if we do indeed intent in keeping people working and improving the works...
 * Also regarding the reversal of the move by Adrignola February 2011 executing Swift request from October 2008 my opinion is that it was wrong to undo the move without addressing Swift opinion (since the user is active and present) even if User:Dirk math is the creator, he failed to oppose the proposal in the proper way (talk page of the work or by talking to Swift directly) and time (2008 to 2011). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not advocating Dirk math's opinions by reverting the move. Simply because another user disputes the move is reason enough to move it back because consensus is not reached, and if consensus is not reached the status quo should be maintained. Kayau 13:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at Darklama's statements in the recent RFD on the book (which Dirk math, one edit in Dec 2009 and hiatus in Dec 2007, did not participate in) for the rationale as to why Neo-Quenya is the more accurate descriptor of the book's content. It was my hope that under the new name we wouldn't see a third RFD, thus avoiding putting the content in jeopardy again.  If Dirk math was opposed to the move, a statement should have been made there (as noted above, present since 2008), rather than simply removing tags I applied without even so much as an edit summary to explain.  Statements noting opposition would have been taken seriously, but as it stands this appears to be a case of ownership. – Adrignola discuss 13:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * DL's statements make sense, but I would like to see Dirk math's. Since he's opposing it, surely he has a reason. If he doesn't soon, or he 'loses' to DL's or other's arguments, then I see no reason why the book cannot be moved to Neo-Quenya, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of doubt right now. Kayau 14:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Some thoughts about these statements:
 * Why should I have to change something in a book that I'm satisfied with? I didn't see any reason to change anything after its completion in 2007. So it seems a strange kind of reproach to say that someone didn't edit a book, to my knowledge continuous reworking isn't a requirement.
 * Neo-Quenya is the name given to all versions of Quenya that date from after the death of Tolkien. So just like a book about Modern English wouldn't be called Modern English (as opposed to e.g. a book about Middle English), it is strange to use the title Neo-Quenya when there is no Quenya without the Neo prefix (maybe the difference would be relevant if Quenya was restricted to describe Tolkien's research and not the language as it nowadays used by its fans).
 * And I didn't know that you have to reply to a remark someone makes on a talk page or somehow after three years it gets promoted to general opinion....
 * The RFD, I thought, was based upon the principle that invented languages aren't suitable for wikibooks. I don't want to become part of that discussion, but the reason I wrote the book was that I get a lot of questions about Quenya and it would be good to have the present state of the language all in one place. If wikibooks isn't the right place for invented languages, so be it. Dirk math (discuss • contribs) 19:08, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: References
You're completely right! I'm sorry, I was sort of on auto-pilot removing the wikimarkup. I'll put them back in now. --Thereen (discuss • contribs) 03:36, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

MediaWiki edit notices
FYI. The edit notice code you removed from MediaWiki:Clearyourcache‎ was being used in limited capacity for MediaWiki:Common.js and its subpages with MediaWiki:Editnotices/Common.js. --dark lama  18:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Okay, I added it back in.  w:Template:Editnotice is something I'm considering. – Adrignola discuss 19:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've got the basic system set up and applied to the MediaWiki namespace via MediaWiki:Editnotice-8. I see the notice when editing MediaWiki:Common.js but not when viewing it, as it looks when you view w:MediaWiki:Common.js.  Other than that it seems to be working. – Adrignola discuss 18:40, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Take a look at w:MediaWiki:Clearyourcache, if you want to see why. They place the message above rather than below as I had done. --dark lama  14:49, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

MerlLinkBot
Hi, why is my bot now unapproved again? . I think the bot was approved to run without flag. The bot flag discussion in 2009 was archived to Requests for permissions/Archive 8 but this page was deleted, so i cannot give you a working link. But perhaps you can browse the archive. Merlissimo (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The archive is at Requests_for_permissions/MerlLinkBot. You misunderstand the parameter.  It indicates that the bot is unapproved for the bot flag itself.  That is not to say that it cannot actually operate.  It just hasn't been approved for the flag. If you read the wording on the template as it appears on the bot page you'll see that it simply states that same information.  I just revised the template to distinguish between bots without the flag and those with, as well as those that had been approved for the flag but had it removed due to inactivity. – Adrignola discuss 15:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, i read the "This bot does not yet have the approval of the community" which i thought is not correct. My bot is global active, but in general there are not so many weblinks affected on this wiki. Merlissimo (discuss • contribs) 16:01, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts on the main page!
I love it. Who was working on the new code behind it? I wish there were a better cross-Project wikicode crew that could share some of these techniques more readily. Here we really need some way to help people page through or visaulize books the way Wikisource does it, especially when one is converting a sourcebook to a wikibook for editing. It could be 'faux' page thumbnails, simply guessed at by some script by rendering the wikitext in longer Chapter-length wikipages... or one thumbnail per top level section... or? Sj (discuss • contribs) 08:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I give credit to Darklama for the actual visual design. Regarding code behind it, I used some templates imported from Wikipedia that were used to show random links over the recent changes there for wanted articles and modified their use to instead pull featured book templates.  While the code has some complexity to it, those wanting to feature new books don't have to know the details, as instructions are shown on Template:Goodbook and the other first-level templates shown in the wikicode for the Main Page.  This system is quite easier to get ahold of than the previous one where there were a bunch of parser functions right in the main page code, bewildering any admins trying to figure it out.  Now if we could only feature some more books... – Adrignola discuss 01:05, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

On CK12
My friend Josh Gay was one of their techies and author-community organizers before leaving (he couldn't bear to stay after the license change) and he has some software that will complete the book conversions to mediawiki in a way that is compatible with wikibooks; you and he should perhaps work together on making the rest of the books better-formatted here.

There's also a lot of work to be done to properly format the Light and Matter bokos and to keep them up to date; I Wuold like nothign better than to have some of thsoe atuhros use wikibooks (with suitable client software, perhaps) to update their works year over year. When authors are able to actually use WB as their platform, the community will be able to grow more reasonably. Sj (discuss • contribs) 08:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I found his LinkedIn page but I don't know if he's got an account with Wikimedia. If so, then we could get in touch.  There are several feature requests for Wikibooks/Wikisource in place at Bugzilla, but they have not gotten the attention they deserve.  This would be in line with MZMcBride's comments that the Wikimedia Foundation is stringing the other projects along, "pretending as though one day they'll get the attention they desperately need to grow". – Adrignola discuss 01:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

!
Thanks for the heads up.Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 00:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks!
Many thanks for your editorial support with the Basic Physics of Digital Radiography. Would it be OK to acknowledge your input on the cover page? marz (discuss • contribs) 23:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, though I don't know if I'd really deserve any credit. I do many little fixes all over the place, that book included, as part of my role here.  – Adrignola discuss 23:48, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

No Fiction at Wikibooks?!
No fiction or poetry on WikiBooks?

But, they're books....??!!!

A book is a book.

There are wikibooks covering many topics which could be categorized as fiction.

 Religion Political Science Economic Theory Various Cooking Instructions (YUCK!)  

Why not something obviously listed as fiction?

Then we'd have a place to categorize all of those as well. Life would be less confusing for many, I'm sure.

Best Regards,

Pete


 * I am a humble servant to policy. What is Wikibooks? defines fiction as out of scope.  There were many in the past that liked strategy guides here as well, but they were deemed out of scope and removed.  Fiction can be especially poisonous to our reputation.  Having information that is not verifiable (based on facts) would lead readers to believe that nothing on Wikibooks can be taken seriously.  We are already quite lax in terms of not requiring references for information that appears to be reasonable on the surface.  But fiction would be over the line.  Books on religion can at least reference theological materials that represent the cornerstones of followers' beliefs, such as the Bible or Koran.  Political science books can reference real-life events and people and the campaigns and behaviors they have engaged in.  I'm not a fan of the Cookbook to be honest, but it's here to stay and is at least verifiable in that you can cook the recipe yourself and make corrections.  Fiction is not something you can verify, it is not textbook material, and it is something that would be deleted on sight.  I know the official slogan is "open books for an open world", but as you'll read in our policy document linked above, we deal with textbooks in a much stricter definition of the word. – Adrignola discuss 22:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

No sweat, I'll move it over to creative commons or something.

Pete

Thank you for help with the Public Policy and Citizen Participation Book!
Wow. Import the history. I have no clue how that might work.

I wonder how the copyright things works on print outs. Also, do User ID's have attribution rights, per se, or is it just a courtesy?

I suppose it is covered by the link.

So if I edit over everything, I wonder if I still am required to cite? Probably no simple answer,

but Wikibooks policies probably cover most issues.

Just a little food for thought.

Geofferybard (discuss • contribs) 03:24, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Copyrights deals with a lot of your questions.  You are right that the link shown when printing a page or generating a PDF serves to fulfill the attribution requirement of the WB:CC-BY-SA license.  While there may not be policies to cover all issues, that is one area we do have covered. – Adrignola discuss 04:53, 27 February 2011 (UTC)