Wikibooks:Reading room/Administrative Assistance/Archives/2009/August

New user warning template
I just created a new template that I've found myself wanting: Template:Use talk page. This template can be used to suggest that a user ask questions and make comments about a module in the module's talk page instead of in its main page. I dunno about you, but I see a lot of that. Feel free to reword the message. --Jomegat (talk) 15:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Creative thinking at work. Excellent idea. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:17, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Request for semi-protection
I am wondering if someone could semi-protect Template:Subject Search. I have included it on the Library page. Thanks. Arlen22 (talk) 20:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Yes_check.svg|15px| ]] Done -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

C++ Programming
The C++ Programming page has apparently been fully protected for at least a year now, apparently due to some sort of edit war... I don't really know, or care, about the reasons that it was originally protected, but I imagine that the original conflict has been either resolved or forgotten by now. Isn't it time to remove protection from the page?Ohms law (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * There are three different tables of contents for the book. It's something, isn't it? Unprotecting would be the easy part. Choosing a table of contents, apparently, was and is the hard part. From the number of C++ books, people just took their balls and went home, so to speak, instead of contributing to the C++ Programming book. -- Adrignola talk contribs 01:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but you are new to the problem. The existence of multiple tocs aren't an issue. For correctness lets clearly state that there was no edit war, the issue was already readdressed many times but I'm always willing to explain one more time...
 * The edit conflict that generated the "issue" was a result of (an admin) unilaterally and against stated opposition, proceeded to unprotect the original toc moving it into toc1 and replacing the frontpage with what is presently there. This actions have been requested to be reverted at the time and several times since then...
 * As a last attempt to resolve the issue and because several Wikibookias requested action. I, using the normal process of discussion (clearly publicized to the interested book community and previous active actors on the dispute) obtained a status of nonblocking to the requested reversal (still pending as valid) that all previous admins refused to act upon (as they are allowed to do). More information for both of you is available on the talk page of the project there is a log of the book history and previous discussions on the subject can be examined on VFD and the Administrative Assistance archive... --Panic (talk) 02:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * A show of consensus is needed to resolve the problem with the book's main page. Unfortunately I think its likely the page will remain forever protected because some people just aren't able to move on and won't accept putting it to a vote to decide its future. --dark lama  12:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I went to add some categorization tags to this page and I noticed that it has been protected, and apparently has been protected for a few years to settle a dispute. Is there any chance of unprotecting the page? Thenub314 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2009 (UTC)


 * When pigs fly, when Hell freezes over, etc from responses I've seen previously on this. The book is dead with it like this.  The original contributors are still around and grudges persist. Frankly, I don't care what the reasoning was. I was not a party to it and as an outsider to the book I have to say this is utterly pathetic.  This is the equivalent of a parent taking a toy away from two children because they can't share and this should never happen on a collaborative wiki.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 19:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I cringe to still participate on this type of discussions since I have done all that is possible to solve the issue. The book is not "dead" it is mangled, evolution has slowed down and the impetus of contributions have been hugely affected by keeping things as they are.
 * A request for the reposition of the C++ Programming/TOC1 into the C++ Programming location in accord with the adopted book convention that defines that the "Cover page will display the historical book index..." the discussion of the subject was opened in 13 March 2008, closed 19 July 2008. This is still pending for administrative action Previous discussion here... --Panic (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * TOC1 links to more pages of the book, but I like TOC2's simplicity without all the transclusions. Why doesn't the book have a table of contents listing chapters and the chapters themselves listing their contents given the structure?  You've got pages with several chapters in their path but the chapters themselves don't link to their subpages.  TOC1 links deep in the hierarchy for several pages while TOC2 links only to the first level.  Add to that the several page moves that have been made such that many of the TOC2 links redirect.  Looking through the prefix index for the book, a lot of the pages still point to redirects and haven't been updated.  The print versions of TOC1 don't match naming convention for chapter print versions.  Many pages are transcluding subpages rather than linking to them, making editing and reading more difficult.


 * Both TOCs and the book structure are a mess. TOC1 is too complicated and TOC2 is out of date and won't work unless subpages are linked from chapters.  All the TOCs need to go and a simpler and up to date one created, and the book structure made simpler for people to edit. -- Adrignola talk contribs 23:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the TOC1 (the original toc), the situation is the result of the evolution of the book not a construct made to aggravate editors (and doesn't seem to bother readers by page access it always have been the preferred entry point) even now were its usefulness to navigation has been hampered because the root page is now the locked cover menu.


 * Why doesn't the book have a table of contents listing chapters and the chapters themselves listing their contents given the structure?
 * The TOC1 structure has all the chapters listed (but preserves a chapter structure for easy navigation to subpages, this is needed due to the non linear interconnects of the C++ language) and that substructure is presented at the end of each chapters again (ie: C++ Programming/Chapter Getting Started at the bottom). I take you are objecting to the above average subtext near each chapter (if we compare it for instance with the Mac OS X book that has a single line). I have responded to similar requests to reduce them (due to aesthetics) but the information there is relevant and pertinent.


 * You've got pages with several chapters in their path but the chapters themselves don't link to their subpages.
 * The chapters page are not content, they are layout helpers and navigational structures. They aren't supposed to link to any content, they were created to fragment the single page version that existed before, as an editor I find it very helpful to do quick restructuring (this was a major necessity and evolved from the concepts of the creator of TOC2 in a consensual discussion withing the book community, this action also removed an obsolete alternative navigation sheme).


 * TOC1 links deep in the hierarchy for several pages while TOC2 links only to the first level.
 * TOC1 only links to the first level, trasclusions do link to subsections were relevant. TOC2 was created as an alternative toc with consensus but evolved into a different and incompatible structure (the order of the content, heading levels etc... were contradictory) and this alternative TOC was mostly maintained by one editor that had a focus only on reformatting the content (this also resulted in duplication of content to new pages, loss of edit histories and moving pages out or simple deletion of content, this is still a problem that needs to be resolved since readers still miss that deleted information by making request for the inclusion of those basic concepts what is a program etc). I have never maintained nor supported toc2 from its conception and this was stated when I didn't object to its creation, so the page today has no real purpose but a separate VFD process on that did raise an objection to its deletion (even if badly substantiated), the page has stalled (been dead) after the creation of the new cover page. Today I'm not pursuing the wish to see it deleted. So soon or later if no one takes on the job I will give it some usefulness as there is a need for a detailed sub toc for another part of that project.
 * TOC1 can be complicated for the average Wikibookian but it is open to evolution the primarily points I defend is that a single page version can be available to editors since this helps maintain consistency on this project (it is the 3 or 4th largest book on Wikibooks in number of pages), having the possibility to pint each chapter independently is also a boon as well have all changes centralized and automatically reflected on the structure and content. This is a community if someone lacks the technical skills to do something they need only ask and at this level of complexity (book structure not the TOC layout) changes to it must be done with care...


 * I hope I have addressed your points. The TOC is always open to changes and new proposals (the actual structure today is not even to my particular like, most chapters are named accordingly to the proposals and objections from the creator of TOC2, some have already received some negative comments, IIRC they are still on the book structure discussion page).
 * You also have to take in account that this book was renamed 3 times at least and is also the result of a forced merge (see the proposal of the fork policy if you care), so the level of detail on its structure is well worked out due to these consecutive changes that needed to be made. --Panic (talk) 00:45, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I am amazed the table of contents of this book evokes such deep feelings. I am intentionally leaving my opinion of the TOC's out of this conversation, because it clouds the matter. At least three editors are seeking this page to be unprotected. Myself, Panic and Ohms Law. I am a bit disturbed by comments like "I think its likely the page will remain forever protected ...", that is just not an acceptable outcome on a wiki. No one will ever be able to be bold and introduce some radical, sexy, ultimately pleasing TOC3 which solves the problem if they can't edit the page. (I agree the probability of that happening may be approximately 1/"number of particles in the universe".) Even worse I cannot put a, , , etc on the page because no one is allowed to edit it. Let's unprotect the page. If some edit war ensues, then we may protect it again.

Leaving it protected gets in the way more then an ugly TOC would. Thenub314 (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I will unprotect it. Let's hope feelings have cooled down since March 2007 such that rational discussion can accompany any conflicting ideas regarding the book's direction.  I favor moving TOC1 to the root, as it is more complete and better maintained.  The Editor's TOC is more for maintenance.  That assessment is made without regard to the parties involved or the comments they've made or the proposals they've put forward.  I do feel that TOC1 could be improved upon, however, as described above.  I may bite the bullet and move TOC1 outright so that improvements can begin. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I only think that being left protected forever was/is likely because its unlikely consensus will be established, which is the issue that has never been resolved. Even now instead of trying to establish consensus a person has tried to game the system, continues to make untrue claims, and directing people to complain about the protection rather then discuss and establish consensus. If the page is unprotected I don't think any page should be moved in its place. I think third parties not involved in the original dispute should be responsible for coming up with a new TOC. I think the admin who unprotects the page needs to keep a close eye on the book and see what happens. --dark lama  12:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The last time this was brought up btw was in 2009[] [], and not in March 2007. --dark lama  15:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think checking for sockpuppets might also make sense in order to ensure someone isn't trying to game the system now. There has been problems in the past with sockpuppets. --dark lama  15:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I take offense on having again, of all people state that I have the intention to deceive (without pointing out were I lied) and that I'm the instigator of this last action (I had conformed that no administrator had the guts to put things right, even if this action is not really addressing what you have done, for the ones unaware, Darklama is the creator of TOC2 and the initiator of this particular situation).
 * You should think twice when requesting or mentioning consensus as a requirement to take further action on this subject, since you have used your administrative tools to further you own objectives against previously stated objection (with valid arguments that are undeniable today) to make TOC2 the cover page (probably yet another attempt to aggravate me, while I was wrongly blocked), this action is expressly prohibited by policy at the time and goes way beyond what we today acept as a BeBold action. You have unprotect the coverpage, moved those pages and altered edit histories. Yet no one took action to correct this event.
 * I have admitted to my errors (none justified the actions taken against me). I have addressed all my mistakes (James and even the Swift incident).
 * As for my civil disobedience actions, and the use of sockpuppets. I don't regret any nor have they caused arm, not even to the well being of the project, in several aspect I think things have improved due to my actions along the time I've been participating here.
 * For User:Adrignola benefit I must clarify that User:BixoDePalha was one of my sock puppets and that SBJohnny was aware of it (and others I used at that time), in that case it was not against policy to do what I did, nor was SBJohnny intervention helpful, due the brouhaha that was occurring at the time his action caused more harm than good.
 * Ultimately I've nothing to regret except to the already admitted mistakes and I would probably act in a similar way since I mostly attempt to defend what I see are valid points.
 * I'm not and never was out to get you. I've even came to bypass my regret of having changed my vote to support your adminship, since ultimately the good out weighs the bad. I can live with our divergences in several issues and recognize you as valid member of the community even as an administrator and it saddens me that you are still take every chance to attack my character even hampering my participation on the project...
 * For one that voted for the deletion of that book and stated that wished no more involvement, the time you dedicate preventing others to fix this issue is truly baffling.
 * I've been always as direct as I can, but always avoided dragging your name out when referring to those actions, I have even attempted to provide a way for you to save face. So please take this chance to clarify any of your initial actions that lead us into this path and state where I'm intentionally distorting facts or gaming the system, if not please do stop with those types of public insinuations, they aren't helping and will always goat me into having to reply to prevent insinuations to become facts. --Panic (talk) 02:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't presume to know what your intentions are. I think a checkuser is needed because of your past willingness to use sockpuppets for "civil disobedience" as you call it, to ensure you are not doing so again. I consider your past "civil disobedience" to be one way you have attempted to deceive the community.
 * Sure I created TOC2, but TOC2 is not why the book's main page was protected. The book's main page was protected because you and I failed to find a way to work cooperatively together and settle any differences on our own. An admin felt that what both of us did as a result of not finding a way to work problems out on our own was unacceptable and so blocked the main page in order to prevent further problems until consensus could be reached. I accept that consensus is needed and have participated in past efforts to reach consensus on the matter. I think you did not like the way consensus was going. I think because you did not like the way consensus was going you have attempted to distract the matter by focusing on issues not relevant to why the page was protected. You were blocked indefinitely for the events you described and it has nothing to do with why the book's main page was protected. I believe it is reasonable to assume that things will continue to involve and move forward when a person is not expected to be able to return.
 * The book's main page was unprotected after months of effort shifting through old discussions related to the book's merger to try to find a reason why it was protected originally and not finding a reason. That unprotection had nothing to do with you or what happened to cause its protection again.
 * I have no idea what edit histories you think I altered and that too has nothing to do with why it was protected again. If you wish to address the matter of altered edit histories, I suggest you start a new discussion and point out what you think was altered. Depending on what you consider "an alteration" I may even attempt to fix it myself.
 * Why it was protected isn't even important any more to resolving the matter and can be considered a distraction. I think distractions are another way you attempt to deceive people. What matters is moving forward by ensuring any further disagreements about the book's main page is resolved through consensus so that it doesn't need to be protected again.
 * I don't feel I have done anything that would require "saving face", nor do I see any need to refer to actions that had nothing to do with why the book's main page was protected. Again for the sake of not having to reread what I wrote, the protection is because you and I did not find an appropriate way to settle are disagreements on our own. What I proposed above basically amounts to is that someone other than you and I should make changes to the book's main page and make any decisions regarding the main page. I can even accept being checkusered myself if it would help ease anyone's doubts. --dark lama  17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * replied bellow to prevent jumps on the text --Panic (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My God, this is one of the most petty disputes I have ever seen. I never thought I would see the day when two highly intelligent individuals would regress to kindergarten level theatrics. If you can act like rational humans for a minute, I think I have a compromise. It appears that one TOC is for a beginner's book and the other is for a user's guide. I advise making a two or three volume set. C++ Primer, C++ Programming, and the C++ Workbook. Geoff Plourde (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No you got it wrong. This is not about the selecting the TOCs content or structure, nor is it about creating a new TOC (even if that would admittedly remove the problem, but with a cost to the project). This time it all began because of request for the removal of the protection on the cover page by a third party nothing more (This action was now done). Of note is that the protection itself was irregular and highly partial...
 * If you don't care about understanding the issue, then at least refrain to call it infantile, this is a festering issue that has been plaguing the project for several years now. If it had a simple solution it would already be done.
 * To the parties involved it has significance and has several implications on the project, these can be resume to:
 * Should we permit admins to abuse their tools as they see fit? (the actual policy says no, so why do admins close their eyes in this particular instance?)
 * Reversal of edits due to conflict. (Conflict of edits, there is no clear policy/guideline to resolve them. The practice so far that seems to have more traction, especially after the adoption of the BeBold policy, is that any unilateral edit that is done if contested can be a target for reversal, if that reversion is justified).
 * What constitutes a consensual decission? (there is no consensus on that one, and the process definition is lax on the now created requirement for a statement of non objection. This is the corner stone of our decission making process)
 * All Wikibookians have the commitment (required by policy) to defend our policies/guidelines. I can't validate item 1 and since the other party doesn't accept any blame on the issue we had a stalemate validated by the rest of administrative community, the same ones that are bound by that rule. This has gone to the extremes that all refused to take action on the issue (a copout). This is an issue that therefore has relevancy. --Panic (talk) 04:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Reply to the above post of Darklama on 17:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC):
 * Please clarify my attempt to deceive the community. I informed that I would do it previously and no deception was used. I continued to participate in policy discussions and to attempt to clarify any prejudgments and fight the same type o tripe you are spooning out again, my actions ultimately led to the correction of situation. I engaged in action again a minority group inside the administrative community. The events have shown that the "participating" community had no problem with my actions.
 * The TOC2 was done cooperatively (this is on the logs), the only problems I had with it (some I still have) was when you intended to move it to the cover page the objections where simple (all were mentioned out before):
 * You were a reformatter in an very active book. (I classify a reformatter as someone new to a book community that intends to reformat extensively the existing content of a book without really participating with his own content. The problem behind this is similar to giving the administrative flag to any new Wikibookians).
 * You had split the TOC elaboration across two distinct files with what seemed two distinct structures this was having huge impact on the heading level and even on the flow of the text. You were doing a vivisection on the book that from your words would turn it in something else.
 * I already had conflicts with your actions (not one reversal so far), you moved sections of the book out without even proposing those changes first (this was the bit about the MFC).
 * You were deleting useful content (you removed and resumed extensively the more basic introductions, even committing errors due to lack of knowledge).
 * Every other editor had been working with the original TOC (I had agreed but refused to maintain TOC2), any other edits by other Wikibookians of TOC2 started after the brouhaha.
 * Heck you weren't even willing to honor the authors section and the copy of the GFDL on the print version of TOC2, we had to have a big fight to have you comply.
 * I also initially voted against you having the administrative flags (on these same reasons).
 * Don't you think now that I think you have matured a bit, those were reasons sufficient to block your move. In fact after you quited working on TOC2 no one picked the slack (but check the original TOC), don't the fact prove you could have acted differently. You even got to start a new book one that could implement your vision and structure, I have been supporting from the sidelines (I created the C++ now subject page, have been sending your way content that is not usable on the C++ Programming book) but as I was afraid your intention was not to generate content and proving me wrong, but in the process you prevented other of doing so and have caused a lot of distress.
 * The book main pages was protected against moves by the administrator that forced the merge. The simple action of you removing that protection to advance your own goals was ultimately against policy.
 * As for other errors you did on the book I have to check out my notes I think I placed some of the information on the Robert Horning talk page, I member him validating that something as wrong, you can probably get the date of that action since it was when you moved the edit histories around the cover page and the old toc (we now have the old talk page on the cover page). I'll attempt to dig it up if you think it is important. --Panic (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * PS: I also understand (this is shared knowledge) that the problem of reformatters is a huge crux on the developing of Wikibooks (books are higly self contained entities). I don't want exclusive editorial control of my work, or anyone else's (I have been shouting this since the start, I never engaged in any similar problem with anyone else, not even Paddu) but since I have been on both sides of the problem (hence the issues with Paddu/fork) I fully understand that we have to somehow address this problem (the new flags seem to give some help but they still work across projects, yet you were an admin when you engaged in those actions. I still think that the possibility of having an more experience editor attempt a reformatting action is low especially in an active book, but I could be wrong and we only don't have more issue due to the dwindling number of committed editors ).
 * Book communities must be fortified against similar havoc this is generally understood. The empowerment of book-communities has been mentioned by myself since the start of this mess, not every one has the stomach to even attempt to come to an understanding when these things occur. I from the start had no intention on getting involved in policy matters and endless debates (I said so when Paddu was blocking my own changes) but have regrettably have been forced to as to survive in this involvement, how much content could I have been adding to the project if this types of attritions wouldn't happen... --Panic (talk) 21:30, 6 August 2009 (UTC) (updated)  --Panic (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We're just repeating previous discussions now. Your bad assumptions about me from the moment of my first edit to Wikibooks is why so much time was spent doing other things rather than writing. You were told to assume good faith repeatedly and to not bite newcomers when I first tried to contribute and you did not listen. Do you think I wanted to spent all my time urging and not getting things done? I never wanted any of it either. In the time that I was contributing to the book I saw you do the same thing to other potential contributors. Until you learn to stop making assumptions about other people your likely to continue to waste a lot of time, and likely to continue to attract the attention of admins. You don't know what my intentions were/are or weren't/aren't nor what I know or don't know because you made assumptions about me. I was not a reformater, reformating was not my objective. I had no hidden agenda or objectives in unprotecting the book's main page. I considered it a last step in cleaning up after the admin who had left many pages and redirects under Programming:C++, Programming:Cplus_plus, Programming:C_plus_plus, etc. It only took me a lot longer to get to it because I was backtracking through several years of history trying to find a rationalization for so I could see if the reason for its protection still applied, and so I could bring it up for discussion if needed, but I did not find anything to suggest it had been done beyond the admin making a judgment call. Like that admin I merely made a judgment call based on the fact the work left unfinished by the admin had been taken care of. The solution to the problem you seem to think exist is simple Don't Bite Newcomers and Assume Good Faith. I don't particularly think people trying to improve books even if its just formating related is a problem. Books are suppose to be consist in style, but often over time become inconsistent and people interested in improving the formating so its consist shouldn't be frowned on out of hand. --dark lama  00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've never attacked your character only your actions. I have never bitten you, I've blocked and contested some of your actions (most are listed above), until you started being unreachable by arguments and imposing your agenda. That lead to the request for arbitration. I haven't been uncivil, nor have you (even if we have been arguing on several issues) nor did I byte you in any way. No one but myself has had his actions more scrutinized on this project. Sadly this also demonstrates a duality on how Wikibookians are treated...
 * When I first tried to contribute and you did not listen. do you what me to prove that this is incorrect?
 * I will hunt down our first conversation. I assure you to the with a high degree of certainty that I welcomed you to the book, all problems started just after your had the epiphany to build TOC2 (sadly I didn't even object to that, IIRC I think even supported it).
 * You were indeed a reformatter due to the actions you took (I've called you out on it several times even pointing out the issues you were creating, I never reverted you, and on the meanwhile you were even duplicated content on the book namespace so to reduce and reformat the existing content).
 * Ultimately you never admired to any wrong doings. Do you even see any problem in having lifted the protection of the cover page and moving the TOC2 into it, against my stated objection (nor merely another editor but the person that has been contributing the most to that same book) as an action in conformity with our policies or even as being morally correct? This is my core grievance, and you seem to know perfectly well it is (by our first words about it above) but still fail to correct it (I don't even what you to admit anything) but you will not even let others do it for you, truly fantastic.
 * Be the bigger man and do it or at least don't fall back to lame excuses to validate or hinder the fixing process... --Panic (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: I've been walking weird for some time now, just waiting for the proper place to pull out that outrageous concept of requirement of a statement of non objection (that one is truthfully a logical bombshell, that spanner can block any non formalized decission process, even if it never applied to that particular attempt to resolve the issue). That was one that ultimate show that if things aren't corrupt they truly seem so... --Panic (talk) 01:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There's a standard joke about different languages causing people to behave differently, with the punchline that speaking German makes you want to invade Poland. I'd really like to know what it is about C++ that causes people to behave this way, so I can make sure to never design a programming language that way. --Pi zero (talk) 02:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Beta feedback
Where can I view all Beta feedback?--Launchballer (talk) 10:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know that you can. Whoever worked on the Beta probably sees it, but I don't know who is part of that group. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:49, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Undeletes
Request for undelete of pages. (Thanks to )
 * Chess/Dragon Variation
 * Chess/van Duijn’s Variation
 * Chess/Sicilian Dragon
 * Chess/Lemming Defense
 * Chess/Corn Stalk Defense
 * Chess/Staunton Gambit
 * Chess/Slav Defense
 * Chess/Closed Game
 * Chess/East Indian Defence
 * Chess/Saragossa Opening
 * Chess/Larsen's Opening
 * Chess/Sokolsky Opening
 * Chess/Durkin Opening
 * SunCreator (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Also Talk:Chess Opening Theory/1. d4/1...Nf6/2. c4/2...g6/3. Nc3/3...d5 (Cannot quite make out why this talk page was deleted given that there is a page of matching content. SunCreator (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That talk page shouldn't have been deleted, I would agree. I believe I tried to delete a talk page redirect that was orphaned after a double redirect was fixed to point to the destination page, but then got redirected to the destination talk page and didn't notice that before deleting.


 * It's been pointed out that the other pages are linked from Wikipedia. They've been restored.  I'd like to fix the links on Wikipedia to avoid redirects when people jump over to Wikibooks, now that I've been made aware that there is such a heavy relationship between the two, and since the book's been renamed as well. -- Adrignola talk contribs 02:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Browsing category
I was just browsing under the Science>biology category and noticed that there was no ecology category. For the past two years my 300-level ecology class has been writing an ecology wikibook that has grown quite considerably (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ecology). How do I get it to show up in the browsing categories? Thanks, Paul --PaulWLepp (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The ecology book is currently under Science → Physical sciences → Environmental sciences → Ecology. Both the introductory chapter of the book and the wikipedia article on ecology refer to ecology as the study of organisms as they interact in there environment. Where/how does ecology fit into biology? Is it wrong to consider ecology an environmental science? --dark lama  16:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Biology is the science of studying living organisms" Biology. Does that answer your first question? "Environmental science is a field encompassing the wide range of scientific disciplines that need to be brought together to understand earth systems and the many interactions among physical, chemical, biological, and human components" Environmental_science. Thus, most of these scientific disciplines (e.g. ecology) should not be classified as environmental sciences. Instead, only interdisciplinary approaches classify as environmental scienes. Thus, I would say, ecology is used by environmental science but it is itself not an environmental science.  --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)