Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2008/August

Problem user on Wikibooks
Just for your information, a user who has a history of contributing original research and harassing other users is currently moving their recently-deleted content to Wikibooks, according to a message on my English Wikipedia talk page (ref w:en:User_talk:Dcoetzee). Deletion discussion at w:en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Optimal classification. Just a friendly warning - please repost this to the correct forum if this is the wrong place. Dcoetzee (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * It's already been on VfD, so we're up on the skinny. Thanks for the heads-up though :-). -- SB_Johnny | PA! 18:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

images in mainspace pages which contain only text/formulas
FWIW, I'm relatively new to wikibooks. (in fact this is my first edit here) Anyway, I was watching #cvn-wb-en and I saw some image uploads by  which contained only text, tables, and formulas. (e.g. Antenna gain.gif, Endfire equations.gif) Each of the images I reviewed was used in a single page (Communication Systems/Antennas) and even after looking at them in the context of that page I see no reason why they shouldn't just be wikified (possibly with  tags and TeX markup). Am I missing something? If these images are abundant enough maybe there should be a tag to make them easier for interested editors to find? Would these be eligible for WB:SPEEDY after their uses have been replaced with equivalent markup? (the criteria don't seem to cover this situation) BTW, I will shortly be editing WB:MOS in my second edit! Err, one more thing... what do you call mainspace pages? Books? Cheers --Jeremyb (talk) 04:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, those images can certainly be replaced with TeX markup; you're welcome to do so yourself. Once that is done, I imagine those would be an uncontroversial deletion.
 * Mainspace pages are called "modules" - a collection of modules like Special:PrefixIndex/First Aid is a book.
 * Glad to have you on board - I look forward to working with you further. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 13:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I look forward to working with you too! Jeremyb (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * In theory, yes. Information which can be displayed using text, wikitext, and LaTeX should be displayed in that way because it's easily machine readable (which means it's easily bot-editable), more easily transformed into other document formats (including text-only formats), etc. However, and I can say this from experience, it's not always easy to translate an existing image of a formula or a table into our ASCII-based markups. I've seen examples of forumula images which used symbols which our LaTeX engine couldn't duplicate. I've seen examples of huge tables which were very difficult and time-consuming to translate into wikitext.
 * The short answer is: Yes, the images should be replaced. The long answer is that there is not a pressing need for it to be done, that it can be done at people's leisure, that we can delete the images (trying to be as nice to the author as possible) when they are no-longer needed. Given the option between the two, I would much rather have an image-based table/formula now then not have one at all. Also, not everybody who edits knows enough about our markup to do it The Preferred Way anyway. I hope this helps. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Also, as to what we call the main namespace pages, the generic term is indeed "module". However, if the page is the main page of a book we tend to call it a "book" or a "TOC", and we tend to call subpages "pages" or "book pages". Most of our pages are named "Bookname/Pagename", so this metaphor fits nicely. But in general, "module" is fine. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 14:49, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I had no intention of removing such images from modules or requesting deletion until "after their uses have been replaced with equivalent markup." (to quote my original comment above)  I agree that images would often require technical aptitude with respect to the various markups and syntaxes involved and that some are not suitable for representation in non-image forms.  I don't doubt there are some images which would be very time consuming to compose replacements for and would be very interested to see examples where glyphs from a formula could not be represented adequately with LaTeX.  (I wouldn't be surprised to see such examples though.  Oooh, I just reread your comment and I see you said it was the LaTeX engine in use not LaTeX itself; that makes more sense.)
 * I don't believe the need to fix these is urgent but I do think it should be a priority given accessibility concerns. See also Accessibility. --Jeremyb (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I replaced Antenna gain.gif with a wikitable at Communication Systems/Antennas ([ diff]) and I've taken a first stab at replacing Endfire equations.gif in the same module. This is my first time using LaTeX or TeX, my math's a little rusty (although I did do multi-variable calc), I don't know the subject area at all, and some of the notation is foreign to me so there's plenty of room for error.  It would be great to get some eyes on those (hopefully from someone who knows the subject matter!)  Please let me know if you have any questions, concerns, comments, suggestions, etc.  Cheers --Jeremyb (talk) 08:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to create a Wikibook under Creative Commons license?
I teach Linux system administration and I'm considering to start a Wikibook for course material. I would prefer to publish the book under a CC license. Is this possible at all? As far as I understand it, the Free Documentation License is not compatible with the GPL nor the Creative Commons licenses.
 * No, they're not compatible (yet). At some point in the future, they likely will be, and we will probably migrate our content to CC-by-sa-xx. May I ask why you want to use CC-by-sa instead of the GFDL? &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 17:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * He could dual license the work. --Panic (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course he can dual-license his own original work. But the version here would be a permanent fork using the GFDL, at least until the licenses are made compatible. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 19:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Forking has nothing to do with it, forks can occur under GFDL as most any other licenses and the secondary license would be as important here on Wikibooks as any other place (that is the core of any multiple license scheme). He needs only to add the necessary reference to the book about it using a dual license.
 * "Is it possible to create a Wikibook under Creative Commons license?"
 * Response: Yes you can, but you must use dual license scheme and one of the licenses must be GFDL.
 * or: No, you can't create any work on Wikibooks that excludes the GFDL (but a dual license could address your requirements). --Panic (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that kind of fork :) &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I asked around a while back before starting uim. I was interested in publishing the book under a public domain license. The response as well as the precedence(s?) I could find was that I could set it up as PD from the outset and a clear notice stating that all contributions to the book would be in the public domain that didn't get contested should be sufficient. --Swift (talk) 19:35, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is a different approach and you are intentionally aiming to publish the work. In any case you can't on Wikibooks exclude the GFDL+Exceptions (as I like to label it) as a license. You should be able to make any proposal on the licensing of the work, and PD isn't a license but a state of the rights over a work, the GFDL would impose limitations on the PD status (since it gives a greater level of freedom). The second and probably the biggest problem would be checking that no GFDL content outside of direct contributions to the work is used on the edits, for instance using Wikipedia material wouldn't be possible. --Panic (talk) 19:57, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

No you can't use another license for the text content of the book. Every time you or someone else edits the page it states just below the edit box that all contributions to Wikibooks are considered to be released under the GFDL. You also can't force a book to be dual licensed, because anyone could opt out of the GFDL which isn't allowed, opting out of the other license would defeat the purpose, and requiring both licenses to be used for all derived works would probably be considered a violation of WMF policy or a violation of the CC-BY-SA license. The most you can probably do is dual license your own contributions and mention this on your user page with something like "I release all my contributions under the terms of the GFDL and CC-BY-SA licenses unless otherwise stated. You may choice which license you use." This only applies to text contributions though. For images and other media you can use any free license including CC-BY-SA. --dark lama  20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That kind of fork :) &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 21:00, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I couldn't disagree more with that statement "No you can't use another license for the text content of the book". We've discussed this issue heatedly and I'm not alone on my interpretation. But facts and the historic process must be taken in consideration, one example of existing dual license works is Scratch/Content_License, I will state that a dual license will not collide with the copyright notice on each edit action, more so the notice is a requirement of the copyright policy, every edit on Wikibooks must be granted to Wikimedia using the GFDL+Exceptions as stated in the policy, that copyright notice satisfies that requirement that "By clicking "Save page" you are indicating you grant the Wikimedia Foundation a license to use your work under terms of the above bolded text. If you do not agree with these terms, then do not submit your work to this website." the bolded text is the GFDL+Exceptions, but it does not exclude in any way the use of more licenses (but one must be the GFDL+Exceptions at least while the work is on the project) as the policy clearly states "unless otherwise indicated", one can put a statement on one's talk page that will cover the user own contributions (like the above post states) or in the license attribution of the work the is targeted by the multiple licensing, no one on Wikibooks may opt out of the GFDL+Exceptions (that is clearly stated on the policy), the only problem is that such works can't use other content that is licensed only under the GFDL since it permits future versions to opt out and possible constitute a violation of the copyright holders rights by way of permitting an unauthorized relicensing if their work. --Panic (talk) 00:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The Uim book does not fall under dual licensing, in that case Wikibookians that have rights over their contributions are only stating that they will put any right they may hold into the public domain, but the license is the GFDL+Exceptions at least on Wikibooks, it can be argued that since the copyright holders have released it under PD and by the statement on the book, it grants the right to any future version to be re-licensed without special considerations even for commercial or non public uses. --Panic (talk) 00:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By submitting text work to Wikibooks you agree to release your contributions under the GFDL as is Wikibooks' policy. The same cannot be said for any other licensing terms. There is no obligation on the part of a contributor to release there contributions under another license or to continue to use the dual license model. So once someone hits that submit button, the work becomes GFDL-only unless the contributor says otherwise on the user page. Any dual licensed work submitted on Wikibooks risks becoming GFDL-only when someone modifies it on Wikibooks. People can only use another license outside of Wikibooks for those contributions that were dual licensed and not for the modifications where the contributors did not agree to dual license. Wikibooks cannot in my opinion require contributors to dual license there contributions or put another way cannot forbid opting out of CC-BY-SA or public domain. --dark lama  00:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * If the work clearly indicates that it is has more than one license any contributions will fall also under that work license . If contributors don't want to license their contributions under a multiple license they should check how the book is licensed. "Wikibooks cannot in my opinion require contributors to dual license there contributions or put another way cannot forbid opting out of CC-BY-SA or public domain." I partially agree with you sentiment not that it is a requirement (it isn't, the users have alternatives) but because it can become problematic if similar works were to be created and the only major difference was the license scheme selected, in this sense standardization of the license used would facilitate matters, for me the GFDL is good enough. But as things stand we as a community will have to chose allowing that freedom and enable a greater number of contributions of content or restricting it to a single license. Personally I don't have a preference nor a solution if in future such situation presents itself, I would probably support the existence of both works since the important aspect is to  enable production of content...  The project survives only due to donation of content, work and money, restricting it would be detrimental to the project. In the case at hand it would result in alienating a future contributor.  --Panic (talk) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking about this problem. We seem to be addressing the multiple license only on the exclusion aspect, if the licenses are contradictory to each other (and so objectionable by adherents of the other), or that the motivation was to temporarily bypass a limitation. On the examples we have so far seen, similar (but not compatible) licenses have been used. It is even possible to satisfy all the licenses requirements at the same time without any collisions (at least I didn't detect any) so the works after being dual licensed (lets simplify) will probably never change its status, in this case, content of works sharing any of the licenses can be used (if the license used permits it), in the case of GFDL or CC-BY-SA there would be no special problem. In the presence of very similar licenses I don't see a problem nor a rational reason for a contributor to object to it. This is probably the reason for the inexistence on the project of similar books that only diverge on the licensing, or why the number of multiple licensed works is so small...  --Panic (talk) 17:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * What amazes me in this whole discussion is that it seems to be completely ignoring earlier discussions about this very topic that have gone on seemingly ad nausium. This is hardly the first time this topic has come up, and I highly doubt that it will be the last.


 * There is nothing in either Wikibooks policy nor Wikimedia policy that demands exclusivity with the GFDL, nor does the GFDL prevent dual-licensed content co-existing with exclusively GFDL-licensed content (as long as they are clearly marked as such). Here is a user that is much more comfortable with one particular but unfortunately (perhaps at the moment) incompatible licenses.  I can even picture an entire team of individuals who perhaps want to add content under terms beyond just the GFDL.  Are we really trying to tell these individuals that we "don't want their kind" here on this project?


 * Yeah, there is an issue for what the project policy may be in terms of people on this website and for clearly marked dual-licensed book projects may be in terms of adding contributions to those kind of projects. From a strictly legal point of view, I don't think there is a problem requiring subsequent users on this website for contributing under both licenses when such dual-licenses are clearly noted.  Downstream users is a different issue, but that kind of forking is not what we are talking about.


 * The real issue comes when some user insists on contributing exclusively with the GFDL on such dual-licensed wikibooks. Should such a fork be allowed on Wikibooks?  Why or why not?  Does such a user essentially destroy the dual licensing?


 * I think such sorts of dual licensing can and indeed should be encouraged if it helps to expand Wikibooks and bring fresh talent and opportunities to this website. There are also very legitimate reasons (which can be stated very clearly in a book introduction) for why dual-licensed content may be desired well above and beyond just the whims of those who are starting the book.  It would be a crying shame that such sort of book project can't be started strictly because the "community" here on Wikibooks doesn't want to see dual-licensed content here because it is too complicated to think about.  It also doesn't have to be all that complicated.


 * This is also a completely different issue from relicensing content, which is a whole different can of worms. The dual-license must be established right at the beginning of the writing of the book for it to be effective at all.  --Rob Horning (talk) 04:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello...

I'm new to Wikipedia and Wikibooks, and the information concering documentatin and copyright is confusing at first read, and second read, and...

My question: I want to use a few definitions and receipes in a cookbook I am preparing for a foster family agency; it's a fundraiser.

What can I use, how much, and how do I cite the material I use in the book?

Mel Moore MMMSTI@AOL.COM
 * You can re-use any text on Wikibooks under the terms of the GFDL. This means, you must give attributions, and must include a copy of the license text. The authors of each page are listed when you click the history tab at the top of a page. It would be nice if you give a link back to the copy at Wikibooks as well. Hope that helps. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 20:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Asking the help of Wikibookians ?
Hello Everyone! My name is Sylvain and I have been told in the Wikipedia village pump to ask for your help. I am currently writing my dissertation on the organisation of Wikipedia for my master of political philosophy at the University of Sussex. I got a little problem: I am a french native and my english is still not so perfect for a dissertation, therefore I need it to be checked. My fellows are also currently in their work so I cannot really bother them for that.. Then I had this idea of publishing my work-in-progress dissertation on the Wikibooks in order to get the help of some people to check my grammar an stuffs. Do you think there could be any people willing to help me for that? I'm waiting for your views and advices! :) Yours, --Karibou (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes there surely will. But you should probably use your user-space for the work until it reaches the state you like. Since your dissertation isn't yet published (and depending on the content) see WB:WIW on the topic of original research, pages can then later be moved to where you think they best fit, if your University publishes your work in any way you can then request a move to Wikisource and/or keep a copy evolving here (probably on a broader topic, again depending on the topic). Hope this helps.  --Panic (talk) 16:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, Wikibooks is not for publishing original research, however Wikiversity might be a good place to head. There is also a Academia, which would be a much more appropriate location. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 16:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * This idea is a little dangerous, I think. First off, it's your dissertation. It's one of the most important things you might ever write. You don't want to open it up to "the crowd" because all sorts of things could creep into it. Wikibooks is probably not the right place because of our prohibition on original research (as Mike pointed out). Wikiversity is too open, and it's going to be impossible for you to keep control over it. Academia Wikia (again, as mike pointed out) might be a decent place too, but you're still leaving it open for anybody to play around on.
 * I personally would be happy to proofread it for you, although I would only have enough time to go over 1 draft of it. You might be able to find a few other volunteers as well who would be willing to proofread various drafts of it. It is about Wikipedia, and Wikipedia is popular enough. Good luck with it, whatever you decide. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all these answers! I brought the discussion into the Wikiversity. Thanks for your help Whiteknight, I'll contact you for proof reading! :)--Karibou (talk) 07:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

change in intentions with which the book was created
I created The Book of Mathematical Proofs in Sept 2007 originally with the stated aim of creating a collection of all possible mathematical definitions, theorems and proofs. Increasingly I started feeling that this amounts to just creating an encyclopaedia of mathematics, a function well served elsewhere. The book has too gigantic a scope if built with this intention and is doomed to fail. The only alternative I feel would be to change the original objectives of the book, and instead to create a repository of the beautiful/good proofs in mathematics, without any regard to the various fields they belong to. For example, the Pythagoras Theorem, Euler's Theorem, Fermats theorem etc can qualify as beautiful proofs. The community can decide by consensus on the talk page whether any proof is worthy of being included or not. Any comments?--Shahab (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Designing a book is a process, not a single event. You can't expect that the book is going to be completely perfect before you start writing. I've created a few books that looked great as an outline, but which needed radical changes once the writing started. In short, it's perfectly acceptable and normal to have to change the book after you've already created it. The more you write, the more you can identify the strengths and the weaknesses of the design. It would be foolish not to change things as problems become obvious.
 * Now, I would be weary about using the phrase "beautiful proofs", since beauty is incredibly subjective. It may be better, marginally, to do something like "influential proofs" or "famous proofs". However, even "influential" and "famous" are a little subjective. Basically, as the author you need to figure out what you want to write about, and then just write about it. You can attach rhyme or reason after the fact. Good luck! --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. Nice hearing from you again, thanks--118.94.72.112 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Naming Policy
Looking at [ this diff], the new naming policy page deleted a lot of useful information, particularly the advantages and disadvantages of the 'flat' and 'hierarchical' naming conventions. I can understand that there are advantages to keeping the policy page from being too verbose, but there are also advantages in retaining some of the info that was deleted.

Would it be okay to restore some of this info in the policy page, otherwise it could go to a new 'guidelines' page.

What do others think?

Aya T E C 15:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Since the page documents an official policy if you think it has lost the meaning of the approved policy you should restore it to the point it best reflects the approved status. Further edits to an approved policy are only acceptable if they intend to clarify or reduce the verbosity of the approved policy without adding to it, if a edit is contested it would generate a new proposal (revert and create a proposal that restates of the alterations). Due to the type of information you intend to add, mostly fall under clarification and isn't to extensive you should go right ahead and do it. --Panic (talk) 16:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

wow that i so wonderful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinaherrera (discuss • contribs)

I notice that between the two changes that there were multiple proposals on the page, that the page went from a proposed policy to an enforced policy, and the comment for the changes suggests the changes were discussed and agreed with prior to being done. Reverting to an earlier version as Panic suggests would go against what was approved of unless the community agrees to including it again. Likely the extra information was considered informative, but not something that contributed to what the naming requirements should be and what the policy was trying to achieve. Also some (if not all) of the information pertaining to the advantages and disadvantages of the flat and hierarchical naming conventions exists within local manual of style. If you feel that isn't enough to be useful, I think including the information in Help:Starting a new page or book and/or Using Wikibooks so that people new to Wikibooks can find this information could help. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  18:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggested a reversion to a previous approved version, "if you think it has lost the meaning of the approved policy you should restore it" I didn't include last on the phrase but that is implied, I also did a simple check to what was the last approved version but failed to come to any conclusion, some time ago I've proposed a solution to the situation that now exists, if after a vote someone fails to provide a useful comment or to "lock" the version under vote also with a meaningful comment if someone needed to check the edits it will requires a lot of work. Making any study or analysis on how policies/guidelines evolve over time would be near impossible. --Panic (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PDF extension
It's like a dream come true, the PDF Extension is in testing now at Wikimedia Labs:

http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/textbook-l/2008-August/001299.html

The best part about it is, Wikimedia labs uses a copy (perhaps a slightly old one) of the en.wikibooks database. That way, we can test the feature on our own content.

What the extension does is allows you to create "collections" of pages to convert automatically into a PDF. You select pages you like, put them in the order you want, and then create the PDF from that. Sound like a book maybe? The best part is we can save collections, either privately in your own userspace or publicly in the Wikimedia: namespace. In this way, anybody can immediately produce a PDF of the most up-to-date version of the book, on demand. No more PDF versions that take a lot of time to produce by hand and are immediately out of date as soon as an edit has been made. Anybody can do it too, not just admins or PDF-saavy super editors.

I encourage all Wikibookians to come test out this out and, if you like it, to beg shamelessly until they install it here! This is going to be a great extension, and one that will help Wikibooks out a lot. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 00:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

PDF version template problem
The seems to have a problem, the info will generate a pdf that fails to open and there is no way for users to understand that the PDF is not dynamically generated but a snapshot in time of the book. --Panic (talk) 19:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've noticed this problem before, and I don't know what the solution is. The template creates an ordinary Media: link which should link directly to the PDF file. I assumed the problem was something in the upload server. Is there a way for us to fix it here on our end in the template, or is it a bigger problem with the servers?
 * As for the point about the template not having a lot of information, you are correct. We need to fix that. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 21:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * There was some talk in the mailling list (Textbook-I) about a dynamic generator (WikiType), can we use it or link to it, is, would that be in any way a violation of privacy (if not clearly stated on the linkout), is there any book already using it?
 * I have tested it on the All Chapters Version of the C++ Programming book (the only that generated any useful content) and it seems fine reasonable quick on ~138 pages (parsed) generates a ~498 page PDF. (http://dash-of-pepper.com/wikitype) --Panic (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strike that ~138 was to small some of the pages aren't still parsed correctly and the source code isn't highlighted. --Panic (talk) 22:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Navigation extension
I'm trying to figure out which extension we have here that automatically puts the little navigation links the top of a page. I need it for my at-work wiki. Unfortunately, I lack whatever common sense is required to divine that information. Has anyone got a clue-by-four handy? --Jomegat (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That is not an extension - all you have to do is set


 * for all the namespaces you want to have subpages (or you may use an array). See mw:Manual:$wgNamespacesWithSubpages. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 17:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No wonder I couldn't figure out which extension it was! Thanks a bazillion. --Jomegat (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

NOINDEX Keyword
Just a quick technical note: You can now use the __NOINDEX__ keyword to mark pages that should not be indexed by web-crawling search engines, such as google. This keyword only works in non-main namespaces such as User pages (if you have personal contact information there) or talk pages. People who are interested in a little bit more privacy might be interested in this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 15:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

New Move Option
There is now an option when moving a page to fix redirects, which can make double redirects a thing of the past. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:40, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Review of Commons Scope: how is Commons used by Wikibooks?
The Commons Scope page is being re-written, and input from users of this Wiki would be useful. One particular issue that is not yet resolved is what type of pdf files should Commons host? Please drop by and say what you would like as want to ensure that Commons covers the type of pdf and other files that you need here. The discussion is at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal, and the pdf section can be found at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 06:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Commons:Commons:Project scope/Proposal now includes a proposal as to how Commons should handle these file types. Comments are welcome at Commons:Commons talk:Project scope/Proposal. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 20:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This is actually quite important to the Commons community, as there is not an easy-to-determine consensus on this issue currently. I would love to see some additional input from Wikibooks users on this proposal. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 02:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Changing Special:Random to exclude subpages without javascript
There is a feature of Special:Random that when set could be used to pick only books that follow Wikibooks' naming convention. This has the advantage of not requiring javascript, which makes it accessible to more people, who either don't use a javascript enabled browser or the javascript simply doesn't work for whatever reasons in their browser of choice. However there are two possible downsides to this. Pages in books which don't follow Wikibooks' naming convention would still sometimes be picked and picking any random page would become impossible. Neither of these are problems with the current javascript approach. So the question is should Wikibooks request the developers to enable this feature for Wikibooks or not? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  23:25, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * This also means the javascript wouldn't have to be maintained any longer, and would be removed from Common.js. I this change.  &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 23:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * for some clarification, this would be a software change at the MediaWiki level that changed the behavior of Special:Random. With the change, Special:Random would only pick top-level book pages, not subpages. We haven't had a "Random Page" link in the side bar for some time now, and have been relying instead on the JavaScript-based "Random Book" link. Unless anybody has a particular use for the current behavior of Special:Random, I think we should enable this feature post-haste. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 23:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Random book" never works in my browser and as some of you may know I am attempting to bring all books under the naming convention. --AdRiley (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * --Panic (talk) 06:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Cannot edit
Hello, My user id is "mnvktr" (email - mnvktr@gmail.com) and I am trying to publish a book on "WikiBooks". However system displays a message that I do not have write permissions.

Please help me,

Venkat
 * Can you please provide the exact error message you receive when trying to edit http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Sandbox?action=edit &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 19:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Available Extensions?
Is there a list of MediaWiki extensions installed/available on Wikibooks? Specifically, is PageCSS or another extension allowing for selector-based CSS available? Alternately, is there an extension available to allow editing of page headers, which could include &lt;style&gt; as well as &lt;link&gt; elements describing the structure of a wikibook (through use of rel/rev attributes)? --kevinoid (talk) 19:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Special:Version lists the technical information you're looking for. PageCSS is not installed here, and likely won't be. I don't know whether a different extension to achieve the same ends might ever be enabled. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 21:56, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! --kevinoid (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

this is pradeep_btechit@yahoo.co.in i want to send the feedback... many intruders where editing the page... and original information is getting lost!!

Adding a pic
This page:

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Russian/Cursive

needs a lot an illustration of Russian cyrillic cursive:

http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Изображение:Russian_Cursive_Cyrillic.png

How to add it?


 * Like this:
 * [[Image:Изображение:Russian Cursive Cyrillic.png]]
 * But first you will need to copy the image either to the Commons or to en.wikibooks. To do that, download the image to your PC (choose the highest resolution available) and then upload to either The Commons or here.  If there's any chance someone else could use the image, the Commons is the better choice.  But I'm not too sure about the reason given for it being in the public domain. --Jomegat (talk) 18:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you.
 * The reason is that Russian cursive is very different from the Russian typographic letters and people who learn this language need to learn how to write letters too. --rekenavery (talk)
 * While that sounds like a good reason to have such a graphic, it does not sound like a good reason for the image to be in the public domain. Somebody created that graphic and might consider it a work of art - did they release it as PD?  If not, perhaps you could create a new one, upload it, and assign it a proper license.  If fonts can be copyrighted, I don't see why this page couldn't have been.

Hello
I like theme "False Friends of the Slavist". My mother tongues are Ukrainian and Belarussian, and, after 20 years living in Poland, Polish and after wedding with Kashubian wife - Kashubian :o). I want to help with the languages. I have some experience and I want share it with You. Sorry, but I don't know English. Szugar (talk) 08:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like you know English to me :) Certainly more English than I know Ukranian or Belarussian!
 * A good starting point might be Subject:Languages - if you find a language you know, dig in. If not, you can start a new book. If you need anything else, come on back. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 09:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Latin/spoken/lesson 1
Hi, I am trying to use the Latin/spoken/lesson 1 module. When I click on the audible link, I receive an error message that I have to be an autoconfirmeduser. I am logged in and have an account. What else do I need to do? Thanks. Sdietsch (talk) 19:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Suzanne Dietsch 08/22/08
 * You must be an autoconfirmed user to upload media. This likely means you have clicked on a red link, which means the media being linked to doesn't exist. You would then be taken to the upload form for the media, and would get the permission error you report. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 00:31, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Intended book is just a module
Greetings!

When I started my first book: Computers & Society I did not notice that it was classified as a module.

I need to re-classify it properly. Can it be done? (Михал Орела 20:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

Thank you very much for very speedy response and action. Now I think I will sleep easy. :) (Михал Орела 20:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC))

build a computer
I build my own pc, but when I start it works for 10 sec and turn off. What is going on ??
 * It's most likely either a power issue (power supply's not rated high enough for what you're doing, something's faulty or not plugged in) or an overheating protection (is the heatsink properly attached to the cpu?). - 208.85.203.242 (talk) 23:00, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

New Account Creation problems
Well, I found that there is a Rails book here, which is quite useful (the official docs are rather a mess), and I was going to edit something about lighttpd. I guessed that I probably had an account here, so I tried logging in: Login error: There is no user by the name "Xiong Chiamiov". Check your spelling, or create a new account. Ok, then, I guess I didn't make one. Let's register then: Login error:

The user name "Xiong Chiamiov" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: .*[A-Z ]{10,}.* What the...? I can't create a username with a capital letter, even though MediaWiki will automatically capitalize the first letter of my name anyway?

As a side note, I guess I created an account here sometime ago. - 208.85.203.242 (talk) 22:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, since I doubt I'll be checking this, would you please send me an email if you respond? Thanks. - 208.85.203.242 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
 * That should only block accounts from using the same capital letter or a space more than 10 times in a row in a username. It should not block the username you are trying to create. The edit you found was imported from English Wikipedia; there is no account by that name registered here. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 23:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)