Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2004/November

Feature Request: Printable versions
I for one have a hard time reading online books that I can't see as either one big long page or as a final hardcopy printed out. I think there should be a "printer friendly" or an "entire book on a single page" option (where the nav bar and search bar are omitted and the body text is the full web-page).

(I don't imagine the print-friendly page would be hard to do, but collecting the many modules into one might take more programming.) What's the best way to propose such a feature? Mshonle 22:34, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Use the Cologne Blue skin. There's a link to a printable version thus on every page. Dysprosia 02:06, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks: but unless this is the default skin, how are our readers going to know about it? Why not have the link on every skin? Mshonle 02:45, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Of course it's not a great fix, but it is a fix. Maybe submit a RFE at sourceforge? Dysprosia 08:31, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no need for a "printable version" link; if you just print the page from your web browser, it will be printed without the sidebars and stuff. THe screen gets the "navigatable" version, the printer the "readable" one. (Magnus Manske, too lazy to log in)


 * Yeah, but that's not much help to our users if they don't know that. Heck, it might even be best to have a pdf version of the text, properly laid out in TeX (since the equations already are), which people might find even more useable/printable. This is something I'd like to see, and I think it would lend more to the "bookness" of the texts. MShonle 03:39, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Converting TeX to an image is "easy", but converting a Wiki article to pdf is much more difficult. Dysprosia 04:57, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Converting Wiki to LaTeX should be fairly straight-forward. The hardpart (converting to HTML) is already done. The only "tricky" part, in fact, is the TeX code, which is an indentity conversion. Anyway, LaTeX to PDF is easy. Does anyone know where I can get the Wiki to HTML handling code? I would be pleased to write the Wiki to Latex converter. MShonle 05:11, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You will need to download the mediawiki source here, or alternatively browse the CVS (there is web access). Check Special:Version. r3m0t (cont) (talk) 12:26, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * More fodder: I directed a web-savvy friend here and she looked over the books, said, "yup, some interesting stuff, but I'm not going to sit for hours & read online. Let me know when they've got a way to print complete books". I for one wouldn't sit here & print each part of each chapter individually. What a pain! And I also don't' read chapters & books online. All I do online is edit. ;-)  (18 hours a day... so, no, I don't want to be reading more online.)  Elf 00:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Attracting contributors to a textbook: Differences from the 'pedia
Over the past few days User:Panic2k4 (aka User:212.113.164.97-105) and I were discussing about organizing Programming:C plus plus. As the topics weren't terribly C++-related and could be of a more general interest, I thought bringing the conversation to the lounge would offer better solutions than only the few who visit Talk:Programming:C plus plus could provide.

Our dicussion was about:


 * 1) Whether to have the textbook over many modules (as I was trying to do) or have all the contents in the same page:
 * 2) *Advantages of many modules:
 * 3) **More organised
 * 4) **Smaller easier-to-edit faster-to-load pages
 * 5) *Advantages of single module:
 * 6) **Easier to attract contributors. A reader, while reading a section that he/she wants to learn about, can easily spot another section he/she is familiar with and start contributing to that
 * 7) **Contributors can easily find if some material is already covered & if so not write about it redundantly
 * 8) Whether to have sections on related subjects on which nothing much has been written yet, within the book or to have separate books for them (specifically for MFC, Boost, OOP in general w.r.t. Programming:C plus plus):
 * 9) *Advantages of separate books:
 * 10) **More organised & focused on the subject
 * 11) **Readers/contributors not put off by unrelated stuff (e.g. otherwise people might think this's about MFC and has got nothing to do with C++ on Linux)
 * 12) *Advantages of single module:
 * 13) **Easier to attract contributors. A reader, while reading a subject that he/she wants to learn about, can easily spot another subject he/she is familiar with and start contributing to that
 * 14) **Not many red links or stubs
 * 15) Whether to have a "one big HTML" page for a book by transcluding individual modules in the book:
 * 16) *Pro:
 * 17) **Is both "single-moduled" and "multi-moduled" at the same time
 * 18) *Con:
 * 19) **Server load for the single page load & the zillion transclusions?

The original discussion is still at Talk:Programming:C plus plus.

I'd also like to know if there's anything to be done differently in wikibooks than what is being done in wikipedia. Wikipedians like me are prone to assuming that what works for wikipedia works here too. What are the things to keep in mind while writing a textbook rather than an encyclopedia? -- Paddu 21:23, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

''I prefer putting everything on one page until the page gets "too big". Then split off each section onto its own page. See http://CommunityWiki.org/BigBucketsFirst. --DavidCary 05:36, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)''

I gave my 2c on Talk above, one can copy here if need be. The Big Buckets First idea probably doesn't hold for Wikibooks since we're aiming for a different kind of approach here (structure, not freeform). Dysprosia 21:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"we're" (not me Dysprosia, It's starting to get to my nerves, this is a tool people, to write books not articles, one can use this tool or move it to another tool (the content is GFDL or compatible)... Don't spend so much time shouting from white horses, do a little of the work and clean the "dump" on the floor, you think that the work is copyrighted, do it bothers you, then go and contact the author, don't like the structure or have creative divergences then implement your ideas in a fork (this is only bad because it will reduce the readers and then the contributors pool for some time) but will reduce the noise, if someone dislikes one of the works it will be deleted/changed/redirected later, you should think that you will not live past 85 years (check your local average) and that the work will remain, why do you care so much about the "small" details and don't deal with the "big" problems, I place the content above the tool (the tool is cool but it's just a tool)... --Panic 01:23, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Panic's comment here looks incompatible with his hundreds of edits to Programming:C plus plus and Programming: C -/- -/- that only rearranged the material, moved material from separate modules to a single module, etc. So he has, apart from contributing content, bothered about how the "tool" could be used &mdash; i.e. its use in writing single-module books. Others (including I) have not bothered as much about the tools in that they haven't reverted his edits, only tried to approach the problem through talk pages. But I find his "forking" the talk page reducing even the ability to reach consensus through talk. -- Paddu 07:59, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiJunior project
There is a proposal on meta that Wikibooks be used to develope a series of booklets (or it might be a magazine) aimed at 7 - 12 year olds. There is funding in place, so it's just a question of getting started. Would people who are intereted please come to wikijunior and contribute to the discussion. We need to choose a name and decide on what the first topic will be. Theresa knott 11:26, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * We are currently in the process of deciding what the first topics will be. We have already decided that the first humanities topic will be Countries of the World:South America. We need to decide what our first science topic will be. We already have plenty of pictures available for Big Cats, The Solar System and Human Flight. We're having a little vote to decide which one we should work on first. Please come to Wikijunior project first topics. Cheers! Theresa Knott  (Not the skater) 07:45, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK the developement of the first three titles has started. Please come to wikijunior if you are interested in helping out. Theresa knott 20:11, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Book in PDF possible?
Hi, I recently wrote a new book "Associative Digital Network Theory" which is online (in PDF). It could fit in the categories: Computer Science / Discrete Math / Number Theory / Electrical Engineering. However, it is in PDF (from Latex) so it cannot readily be edited. Is this objectionable? Is Wikibooks the right place for it? Benschop 19:57, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * We're probibly not the right place to host the pdf files right now. However, there may be interest from some editors in helping convert the content of the book into the wiki format. Gentgeen 22:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Have you checked wikisource? That could be of your interest, I suppose. Tomos 11:50, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Thanks Tomos, but I see that Wikisource is part of Wikipedia, hence only for access to established knowledge, not to new knowledge (as my book on Associative Digital Network Theory, which even as summary+link was deleted from Wikipedia;-) Benschop 09:24, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Template namespace
Just so I'm sure before I do anything, does the template namespace exsist here like it does on the 'pedia, and can I use it as such? Lyellin 22:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes. Gentgeen 22:22, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks- just wanted to make sure, before I go screwing something up :P Lyellin 22:25, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[Programming:C plus plus] and its fork [Programming: C -/- -/-]
(moved to Wikibooks talk:Forking, because Wikibooks:Staff lounge is getting TooBigToEdit, and that seems like a more appropriate location for this discussion)

AASFTactics
I am not entirely satisfied with the way in which the AASFTactics module (a guide to the online PC game America's Army: Special Forces) is presented. Most articles have large title pictures which take up space without contributing to the book, and it doesn't seem to quite have adapted to the Wikibooks 'style' yet. --Gabriel Beecham 18:25, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)