Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2009/April

Categorizing
Hi, there! Please, I need help putting the How to do nothing book in many categories, not only "How-tos". I did try. I know an editor should try to solve his problems alone, but assistance is welcome, and encouraging. Some of us write, some of us edit, while others fix, maintain, right? Let's go for teamwork! Thanks!!!! Ricardoramalho (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I want to submit a book on Lisp that I wrote
I want to submit a book on lisp that I wrote. (It is www.civilized.com/files/lispbook.pdf)

So, I have gotten a name and password, and clicked on "add wiki page" - the closest thing I could find to 'upload your document'

- nothing happened of any interest. There is a very obscure suggestion that if click on 'create a book' found down in your help link, I can type in a book!!!

Can you please tell me how to upload a pdf file to you as a contribution?

And, by the way, I guess the only way you can tell me is by sending me email? my user name is knott - I hope you can reach me with that.

Thanks, gary knott Knott (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)  (what is this Knott (talk) 23:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC) stuff??? somewhat uncivilized, eh?)

by the way it says "save page" below. What does that mean? shouldn't it say "submit message" (to someone)?


 * Wikibooks is not just a venue to host free content, but (primarily) a forum for collaboration on authoring such works. See Help:Contents &mdash; and Help:Starting a new page or book in particular. You could upload the PDF as a file, licensed under the GFDL (or, preferably, multi-license it under a number of free licenses) and link it from somewhere. You could browse around Subject:Programming to see if there is a nice place somewhere. New users have to wait four days before they can upload images (sorry for the inconvenience, but this is a trade-off to reduce some of the more nasty types of vandalism).
 * You can set your email address in your preferences and other users can contact you through that (a web-form that doesn't reveal your address). Normal discussion, however, usually takes place on Help:talk pages. These discussion pages are normal wiki pages like all other; hence the "save page". --Swift (talk) 15:45, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Imports
I would like to compile wikipedia articles into a wikibook that will correspond with Georgia's Performance standards for U.S. History. How long does it take to have articles imported into the wikibook?


 * It depends on when you make the request and when the next attentive admin notices it. I always make imports a priority because I know exactly how inconvenient it is to have to wait for them (having experienced that before gaining adminship).  Post your request on WB:RFI, and it could be a couple of minutes.  Or several hours.  --Jomegat (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikimania 2009: Scholarships
Wikimania 2009, this year's global event devoted to Wikimedia projects around the globe, is now accepting applications for scholarships to the conference. This year's conference will be handled from August 26-28 in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The scholarship can be used to help offset the costs of travel and registration. For more information, check the official information page. Please remember that the Call for Participation is still open, please submit your papers! Without submissions, Wikimania would not be nearly as fun! - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright question.
While categorizing things in the mathematics subject, I noticed there are a few books that are exams and solutions for various schools. When I write an exam I tend to think of it as my own work and would be rather annoyed if it appeared on the web somewhere. Are there any copyright concerns over students reproducing there exams here? Thenub314 (talk) 15:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Whoever wrote the exam usually owns the copyright. If students are reproducing the exam that could be a problem. However probably depends on what you mean. If you mean students are actually copying an existing exam that's a problem, if you mean students are writing original content based on their own experiences with an exam, I don't think that is a problem. --dark lama  23:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Well I don't know how the students are reproducing the exams. In many cases I am thinking of these are qualifying exams for specific universities.  It just seemed a bit dubious to me.


 * Another question is if you hold the copyrights of your creation. If you created the exams while working for a school or University and no clause exist clarifying the issue, by default you got paid for that work so the rights revert to that institution. IANAL and I don't particularly fallow US copyright laws (as it can depend on state laws also, there is book on US Copyright Law here). It also seems that if those entities are funded by the U.S. federal government (public money) or if so determined by the state law, they can also fall into the public domain unless your contract did exclude your creative work in some fashion. --Panic (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * These are interesting ideas, but I think the issues might be more subtle then this. But this wouldn't apply to papers or books written by academics while being funded by their departments (remember many profs are paid but required to do no teaching at all) so I would be a bit surprised if exams were so different.  But maybe I should look into it.  :) Thenub314 (talk) 08:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Authorship doesn't mean having the copyright as covered above, and if you written any papers you know it is common not only to indicate the institution but any grants used to produce the work. It all depends on the authors contract or license used in such works see also Ownership the edit history and talk page also since it is a bit of a controversial issue... --Panic (talk) 23:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There were similar questions about this at pt.wikiversity. Helder 00:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Dual Licensing Vote
Some people have probably noticed the new banner advertisement for the licensing vote. Some background information:


 * The new GFDL 1.3 includes a special "Wiki clause" that allows migration to CC-BY-SA-3.0, a license which is considered to be similar in spirit to the GFDL, but makes the reuse of content a little bit easier for end-users.
 * Easier reuse is ideal for large multi-author wiki websites like Wikipedia and Wikibooks, where a page's authorship may be a large and complex list of authors and editors, along with the creators of embedded images, etc. In short, currently our licensing issues are a complex nightmare, but with CC-BY-SA it all will get a little bit easier.
 * The Wikimedia Foundation is one of the primary users of the GFDL license. Most other open-content and open-education organizations use CC-BY-SA, so currently our material is not compatible with theirs. This means we can't share content, we can't reuse content that they have, and they can't reuse content that we have. People who are trying to build free materials have fewer options because of licensing incompatibilities.
 * In the past, several authors have requested the ability to license individual books under CC-BY-SA. However for a variety of reasons, this has not been allowed on Wikibooks. It is generally considered that this initiative will be very beneficial for Wikibooks.

I suggest that all Wikibooks go to Meta and vote YES on this issue. It will be good for our community in a number of ways, I think. As a bit of a disclaimer, you must have at least 25 edits to Wikimedia projects before you can vote (I think there are some other stipulations about that too, I don't know all the details). Let me know if anybody has any questions about this. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 12:49, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I voted NO on this issue. I think this will actually make reuse more difficult for people who would prefer not to use CC-BY-SA. People will have to do more work to be sure they can still use a work under the terms of the GFDL. The proposed also proposes to create requirements for terms of service, to update Project:Copyrights and a few other things. Right now its more straightforward you use the GFDL for text, no exceptions. With these changes some works might be CC-BY-SA only and some works might not be, more burden is placed on the reusers to get it right which means more people are likely to get it wrong. --dark lama  13:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The banner needs more information (or more links added to it) and a proper link to the subject matter, since if someone does click on what is present, they get on a redirect page and then are put in a unlogged situation on a SecurePoll server, without the info that you must use your login from Meta, if you have one).
 * The proposal is detailed at Licensing update page.
 * The GFDL v1.3 is already in effect and does affect all content present on Wikibooks our license states "or any later version published by the Free Software Foundation;"
 * So what is on the table now is required to permit the adoption of CC-BY-SA-3.0 content into the Wikimedia projects (since GFDL v1.3 is one sided on the permission to adopt the other license).
 * The above post by Whiteknight mentions that dual license works are not allowed on Wikibooks, this is not exactly correct, and we recently had a discussion about at least one Wikibook that is dual licensed, nor is the opinion that we should fight multiple licenses consensual, but is certainly problematic and having clearly stated that CC-BY-SA-3.0 will also cover our work with the other changes proposed would clarify the use of dual licenses on Wikimedia projects (reinforcing the GFDL that was probably mortally hit with this one sided change), not the optimal solution for Wikibooks but the best available and required for the future growth of Wikimedia. I share with Darklama some of objections to the extra proposals attached as required to make it all work but don't agree with the generalization of the text to all Wikimedia projects, so I will abstain to vote.
 * As a Wikibookians I truly have a distaste of having to go to meta and other Wikimedia projects to vote on things that are Wikibooks related or have such big impact on the project, the same situation occurred on the selection of the project icons. --Panic (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you don't need to go to Meta to vote, and you shouldn't if you have less than 25 edits there! You need to vote from a Wiki that qualifies you to vote. On Wikibooks the link is here Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup it seems that is the case, so what is up with the link on the banner ? Did it work for you? --Panic (talk) 22:29, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it didn't. I needed to log in again and then it came back with a "not qualified to vote" message. Gave up. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any wikibook being imported from a GFDL source?
Hi! I'm a wikibookian at pt.wikibooks and I'm worried about some consequences of the licensing update for imported books that came from GFDL sources. Specifically, the problem is mentioned in 3b, here.

Do you have (or had) some wikibook being written based on a external GFDL source? Helder 23:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

How is everything here?! honestly
Our friend administrator Swift seems to be alone here... How is everything in Wikibooks English? Who is part of the administrators team? I have the feeling that things are too serious here, there is not much public relations concern. We need some enjoyment, some fun, while working. Kind regards Ricardoramalho (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

 Wikibooks has 29 admistrators  according to Administrators/Unstable: '''11 of them don't contribute for more than 6 months. 7 don't contribute for more than one year. Conclusion: half of them are gone. ''' It is time to adopt the wikipedia policy Ignore all rules to shake things a bit. Ricardoramalho (talk) 17:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IAR has nothing to do with anything else you've mentioned, and we already do have that here. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 17:52, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Mike, a slightly defensive answer is better than nothing. I don´t find the policy Ignore all rules written anywhere in Wikibooks, if it is here, it's well hidden. IAR has a lot do to with things I mentioned, since it helps to avoid conservative practices that slow down wikiprojects development. As you know, volunteer work in an institution does not mean that the volunteer can choose what to do, and what not do to, or when to work, and how to do it. The responsabilities of a volunteer has to do with his position in the institution, not with his moods, and personal preferences. At this moment, there is no leadership in Wikibooks. I asked for some help, but people seem to be "looking busy". Maybe I have a wrong impression and everything here is great and working just fine (except for me). I would like to propose the creation of a Public Relations Lounge, in a visible area, with friendly administrators and editors (people with time to be nice and inspiring). The Contact Us page is very unfriendly (when we get there we find out it is in fact a "contact them" page), not another Reading Room, but a place to exchange communication and working ideas. kind regards, Ricardoramalho (talk) 15:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There isn't a IAL on WIkibooks and I would oppose such policy (the best we have is Be bold and I think it suffices), even being anarchical inclined as I am. And of course, I do refute the need to for "leadership in Wikibooks".
 * As for a need for restructuring I have no objection to your proposals or even to the criticism that not all is well and working fine but we do what we can as we can...
 * I see that you are relatively new to the project (8 March 2009) give it some more time and do use part of it to realize the differences with other Wikimedia projects. If you fell so inclined we will always appreciate any PR campaign you can do for the project or help people not felling as neglected as you, I'm sorry I didn't welcome you to the project (as a rule I only do it after the users does some contributions) but I will fix it now :) .   --Panic (talk) 16:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems that you have just failed to reach to an active Wikibookian, you were welcomed by Swift and seem to have made some dialog with him, I fail to comprehend "I asked for some help, but people seem to be "looking busy"." remark... --Panic (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * It seems that every other comment I see from you is a snide remark about other people's replies. We all (you included) do choose what to do and when to work. You have no right to demand that anyone serve you in any way. If you're having trouble interacting with the community, maybe it's because of you. --Swift (talk) 18:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear Panic, thanks for your kind considerations and balanced answer. That is just what a newcommer needs. You are a leader, like it or not. I do participate in other projects, and I feel other communities have a better atmosphere, from my point of view. Swift, I am not demanding anything, I am talking about honest volunteer work. This is a discussion page, I have the right to keep talking about something, (until I get a good Panic answer), and to make remarks, that I consider important, specially when administrative attention is required. Since you say it could be because of me, I have to remember that my experience in wikibooks was bad from the start, I am an authentic bitten newcomer, by you. But that dispute was deleted, and I hope you don´t point your finger to me again. You all have a nice day Ricardoramalho (talk) 09:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

It is correct that Wikibooks does not have a page on IAR. Nevertheless, a true leader would tell the truth: IAR is policy, and always has been. A failure to recognize that is just that: a failure.

If you need help with something, all you have to do is ask - there are people around to help you if you do so. What we are not here to do is somehow (by magic?) guess at what help you need, when you say things like "How is everything here?! honestly." The fact of the matter is that you didn't ask for help, so you got none. People actually are busy (not just seeming that way) - it's no surprise that they're somewhat less enthusiastic than you may like to respond to nonsensical comments. If you have concrete ideas about PR or improving the way the community communicates amongst themselves, then by all means, make such a proposal, or implement it immediately if appropriate. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 20:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IAR is chaotic, there is no direction to it. Accepting it as an unwritten policy is very dangerous if communicated to others. I can see it being accepted as such at a personal level at various degrees but as a public written policy it is too dangerous, it requires one to be open to challenges (on his interpretation of things, on his views of how they are and should be). It leads to many time sink discussion and on generating endless conflicts.
 * It is against other policies, as a Wikibookian one is expected to enforce any policy and verify adherence to guidelines, defending the IAR negates all that.
 * What IAR truly does is empower people to do as they like, with disregard to what others have done before, it's a BeBold on steroids, that can even be used to deny itself. We are better off with our BeBold policy, the need to enforce all policies and the understanding that guidelines are to be fallowed but the community accepts that there could be instances where exceptions can exist...
 * I understand there is something appealing about not needing to know the rules to be able to participate, but that isn't a realistic expectation, people need to understand how to interact with others, know the GFLD, how to use the Wikimedia software and many other rules/presets before interacting with the project. Expecting that they understand what the project is about and how they are expected to perform here is just as natural, ignorance can't be a justification to trample on others. --Panic (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

So, why didn't I reply? Well, I saw your book - which you created straight after your dispute with Swift - as a direct attack on the Wikibooks community ("How to do nothing, dedicated to Wikibooks") and not created in good faith. I've seen little contribution from you since, which is fine as no doubt you are busy. However, slightly sarcastic comments directed at the community for not doing much, which is how I read your contribution to this page, does nothing to encourage me to engage in friendly conversation right now. Can I suggest you continue to contribute to the content and avoid being judgemental about other people's contribution as a starting point to engaging in a positive way here. Thanks. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 20:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi everybody. Thanks for the comments. I will revise my approaches, as I hope wikibooks revises the quality of the replys in everyday routine (that is my main issue)(so we wouldn´t need this conversation), although the replys in this discussion are very good. Let me say somethings in a very calm way: 1)I did ask for help many weeks ago and didn´t get it (on the Categorization topic of this page, and also in the discussion page of the book I initiated). 2) since I felt bitten in my first aproach to wikibooks, and I am not getting much help, I do feel less motivated to contribute more here. 3) The How to Do Nothing book is not an insult, and Swift even helped with orthographic corrections, and other things that I thanked her. 4) How to Do Nothing is a serious book, I exercize Tai Chi Chuan, I read the Art Of War chinese book, I am a clown (as a clown I do nothing very well), I am an artist, so I enjoy contemplation. 5) My first idea was to never come back here again, and just participate in other wikiprojects, but I thought I should not feel intimidated by a first bad experience, and I decided to write a text, so I could maybe get more respect as a "contributor". 6) My dispute with Swift, that I tried to forget, started when I wrote an unsigned comment in the discussion page of the Dutch book (I found the book not very educational, as I wanted to learn Dutch). I decided not to sign that comment, but I was logged in, so I could be tracked. And I was tracked: Swift edited my post and put my signature in it, with a link to my contrib page. (since my contrib page in wikibooks was empty I saw that as a way to disqualify my comment). Swift also told me to be bold (without knowing my Dutch knoledge). When I complained to her (or he) about her editing in my post, she told me it was "standard procedure" in unsigned posts, I was not happy with her replys about this and decided to end the dispute, and deleted everything about it. I thought that the reply on my critic comment was unappropriated, specially for an administrator. Than I wrote the How to Do Nothing book, so next time an administrator decides to advertise my contrib, I could show something. The book was inspired in the incident, since I found an administrator doing more than what she should. Conclusion: I thought that dispute was over, but some replys right now demonstrate some people didn´t forget about it, and suggest that I am really being neglected, as I thought. That is why I see peolple looking busy, because they pretend not to see me. I am satisfied with this conversation. Best regards, Ricardoramalho (talk) 13:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC) PS: that incident brings other questions, that could be discussed later: Should people be forced to sign? Is a "standard procedure" necesseraly correct? Is it really a "standard procedure" (to show someone´s identity, and contribution)?
 * Ricardo, do you find the atmosphere better at other wiki projects to which you are contributing? What are these wiki projects; is it Wikipedia or Wiktionary or another project? What is the language of the wiki project to which you contribute, and which drives your expectations about how a wiki community should work? What is it that you think the English Wikibooks can learn from the other wiki communities? It is normal or usual that people do not sign their comments at these communities? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dan. I find better atmosphere in 5 projects (if I spoke other languages I would probably find others): Wikipedia English, Wikipedia Português, Wikiversity English, Wikiversidade Português, and Wikilivros (portuguese)(I contribute more in 3: Wikipedia English and Portuguese, and Wikiversidade). I never had problems anywhere, never had help request unanswered. I have seen unsigned comments (hard good comments) in Wikipedia Português (unsigned and unlogged in), it is not common, but tolerated (normal). I always sign my comments: in wikibooks I tried my first and last unsigned comment, unfortunately that led to a dispute. (contradictory experience: to be logged in is not better, since the profile is visible, and was shown, as I didn´t expect). I believe it is more important to read the message than to chase the writer. Wikibooks can learn with other projects to have more sense of humor and tolerance. (one administrator in portuguese even keeps a public list of well known "over bold IPs"). I see administrators in other projects really enjoying what they do, things look too serious here, and that is not very convincing. As you known, anybody can edit any page in wikipedia, nobody is obligated to be registered, or logged in to contribute. So I kindly question, why expose the editor of a comment? And why insert a link to his contrib page? I agree signing is a guideline, but not signing is not an ofense. If someone really wants to see a signature could just ask "please, sign your comments". If there is an unsigned post in a user personal page, then in his own page the user may expose the editor and contrib page (and do other things), but I don´t find correct to do it automatically in all discussion pages. In some situations identity discretion is good : example, someone could feel unconfortable to comment bad writing about religion, racism, fascism and other sensitive issues. Swift works in good faith, so do I, we just had a cultural encounter. (I think I ended that dispute too soon). (I also learned that it is better to contribute and focus more on fewer projects). Ricardoramalho (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I enjoy obfuscated code as much as the next programmer. If you hadn't signed your post than what you wrote above could be attributed as something I had said instead. I don't understand what advantage a person could see from not signing their post, the same information is still present in the contribution history for all to see. While not signing posts can make discussions unclear. Who said what, when did they say it, and who any response is directed at can become quickly obfuscated. People need those things for context and to understand the order in which discussions happened. If people can't follow the discussion, they aren't likely to respond. --dark lama  01:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Be bold, and let be bold. Could someone please help me improving the categorization on the How to Do Nothing book? I would like to put it in many categories... Is the book going to be ignored forever, or deleted? Am I going to be locked away for participating in a dispute? Is that book a hostage of this discussion? Dear Darklama, an unsigned post is not meant for long discussions, it is just a statement, an anonymous comment. Feedbacks are rare... Evaluation is frequently anonymous in many institutions. Those who want to be recognized can sign. Anyway, people can just skip one line to reply, or use a different paragraph... I just would like to get a simple assistance I need in wikibooksland, to give a more finished look to a book I started. It is not fair to contribute without assistance, and perhaps we can end this wide topic, and even start a new one with a happier editor. I could also leave for a while, after the help, and that would be a good deal, wouldn´t it? Ricardoramalho (talk) 23:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Some books go a long time with only a single contributor. Nobody is holding the book hostage. Feedback isn't that rare, feedback comes in many forms. Skipping lines or using a different paragraph isn't really enough to tell where one person's comment or response begins and ends. Expecting assistance or expecting people to get your meaning when they don't is also not fair, and could be why people don't assisted you. You don't have to leave unless you wish to. The categories off hand look fine to me, books aren't categorized as much as Wikipedia articles are. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  00:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks Darklama! I noticed the category is better now, I had Health and Wellness in red (I got a message once saying Health and Wellness was not a category... and couldn´t fix it)(there is still some red words in category line... but it is okay). Thank you all for the discussion, help and contributions on the book. Interesting discussions on How To Do Nothing will continue on the book discussion page. Kind regards. Ricardoramalho (talk) 21:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Artificial Consciousness Book
I have written a series on Artificial Consciousness, I would like to discuss with someone whether or not WikiBooks is a suitable place to publish it, what the implications are for copyleft, and what costs are for printing it. Through your sister organizations. It needs editing, so a collaborative editing environment might not be a bad thing.

As well, I am building a Portal on Wikiversity, and I want to consider a library location for works that have been released under a copyleft licensed and those that have lapsed. Is this more properly discussed with WikiSource?

Thankyou --Graeme E. Smith (talk) 21:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wikibooks!
 * Your first stop should definately be What is Wikibooks if you haven't checked it already (sorry, it isn't the simplest introduction to the project). Wikibooks is not really the ideal place to publish anything as it is more designed to collaborate on authoring. Content on Wikibooks is potentially in constant flux and no version final. Wikibooks would be a great place should you wish to make your content available for collaboration. Note, however, that most books have few contributors and you may wish to explicitly solicit help, here on Wikibooks in the projects reading room, through internet forums on related topics or even real life.
 * The main implications of the Wikibooks license is that anyone can copy the content or create derivative works, but must give attribution to past contributors. Once you release the content under the GFDL, you loose copyright control over it.
 * Hope that helps. --Swift (talk) 23:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I have read the Wikibooks: What is Wikibooks introduction and I think I understand how the project works, so I am going to try a version of the least proprietary works in my series to see what you make of it. I call it Datamining Your Intuition: How to be a more Productive Genius. Do you think anyone else would be interested in working on it with me?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Would this book be appropriate?
I was thinking of doing a textbook on the history of the National Hockey League. Would it be within the scope of WikiBooks? Maxim (talk) 02:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think so. See What is Wikibooks for the official policy.  Wikibooks is for hosting textbooks and educational guides, so a history book would be fine (just don't cram it with stats, rosters, etc! A fan-site would be totally inappropriate).  The only problem you might run into is "Wikibooks is not an encyclopedia".  Problems will arise when there is too much data, lists, etc. and not enough educational material.  That's the key.  Hopefully someone with more experience/knowledge will back me up (I hope I didn't give bad advice! :-).  -- <font color="#000090">Mr. NMC (<font color="#000090">talk ) 02:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * History textbooks are within scope, yes. A fansite, not so much, as NMC says. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 02:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of doing an extension of the project of the same topic I've sort of finished at Wikipedia, expect I want to expand on it much more. ;-) Is this the place? :) Maxim (talk) 12:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Imports
While much of the content has been imported, there still seem to be copy-pastes from WP. Looking into some speedy deletions, I found this page which seems to have been copied here, after Jomegat's big import. This needs to be cleared up. --Swift (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

CLEP and DSST Study Guides
Based on an entry on the talk page regarding CLEP exams on wikipedia, I have taken on the ambitious project of creating study guides for these exams. So far I have created catagories for CLEP and DSST. I am working on DSST A History of the Vietnam War. I am here to solicit assistance on this project. Writing the study guide is a great way to study for the exam, if you need the class. That's why I'm doing it. For each exam there is a fact sheet that has an outline of the required topics. I am following this outline in setting up the study guide. I am changing the wording of everything to respect the copyright, however I am attemting to preserve each idea. I am in the military so I have free access to all of the fact sheets. I'm not sure that they are free to the general public. I've heard $10-$12 each. If you want to write a study guide, let me know which one, and I will post the outline to your talk page. Wellvrsd (talk) 19:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * wikipedia pages for CLEP and DSST Wellvrsd (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

consistent template for author profiles in wikibooks
hi, i am writing the animal behavior textbook <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Animal_Behavior> and would really like to include the profiles of various significant thinkers along with their ideas. wikipedia has an infobox template that does what i am thinking of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolaas_Tinbergen>. is there an approved way of doing this in wikibooks? if so, how do i do this? if not, how can i get such a template started? thanks a major stack Robert Huber (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There few restrictions on template authoring or usage. If you'd like, you could request for the infobox to be imported to Wikibooks.
 * Ideally, we would have better categorisation of our existing templates so that you could browse related templates and get ideas for authoring your own. --Swift (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * thanks a stack swift. i think i would be most interested in authoring my own template for including the bios of significant people. how hard is this? i have made a template for a little stub before, but this seems a lot more complicated than that. is there a webpage that describes creating custom templates with multiple fields for this? i think it would not be a bad idea to include the infobox in wikibooks anyway. i would start with that and then convert as i learn to do my own templates. i am requesting an import of the infobox feature as well. thanks again and all the best, Robert Huber (talk) 13:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

image problem with 'W D Hamilton.jpg'
hi all, i have been trying to use the image File:W_D_Hamilton.jpg in my animal behavior text but i can't get it to display for the life of me. it works perfectly well for other images such as File:Sigmund_Freud_LIFE.jpg. i am wondering whether am i doing something wrong or whether the image is funky. could somebody please confirm whether the image is working fine for them. thanks Robert Huber (talk) 13:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The image was deleted at Commons because it was copyrighted. Commons doesn't accept fair use, but Wikibooks does. Maxim (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * That image cannot be displayed because its on Wikipedia. In order for any image to be used on Wikibooks, the image has to be uploaded to Wikibooks or Wikimedia Commons. This particular image appears to be fair use though, so cannot be hosted by Wikimedia Commons. There are also some restrictions on the use of fair use images on Wikibooks which I think probably apply, because I don't think this image is absolutely necessary in the context that it would be used. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:10, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Query notice
Hello,

This template doesn't work properly when the page passed in as a parameter is not in the main space. See User talk:វ័ណថារិទ្ធ as an example. The problem is, I think, that the parameter being passed in is the page name (in this case, Cookbook:Cuisine of Cambodia) and the same parameter is also used to link to the relevant page's talk page by inserting the page name after Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Done. The page name variables now support page names other than the current page. --Swift (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Finding WikiBooks pages by Google
Hello. Could an admin please advise me on these points?
 * When a new page is made in Wikibooks, how long will it be before the page could be found in a suitable Google search? Is the caching availability of pages by Google modified by admin action or is it all available to it?
 * Is there any way to better make a page known to outside searchers?
 * I notice that Wikipedia pages are invariably available in searches but that Wikiooks pages rarely are; (I mean, not even on page twenty!); this happens when Wiki is specified without saying which is intended, or indeed when WikiBooks is specified, and when it is nonetheless known that a substantial page exists in each.  What is going on with it?

Thanks in advance for any assistance?Armchair (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would guess that Google indexes the site about once a month. That is not under our control. The Google spider views the site as an anonymous user, so if a page is flagged, they will see the flagged version, even if there are newer, unflagged versions. I'm not sure what you mean about "the caching availability of pages by Google".
 * Google PageRank is based on incoming links from popular sites. In theory one can try to boost search results, but I would recommend against it for a number of reasons. A better indicator is probably Alexa rankings, which measure traffic.
 * Yes, Wikibooks appears low in many search results - that is not surprising. We are still a young and growing project. If one is concerned with growing Wikibooks to be a successful and sustainable project, there are more important issues than how high we rank in Google. For example, we need more people writing content. That is a prerequisite to rising in search indexes, and while rising in the indexes will bring more contributors, we cannot rely on that as a means to increasing our participant base. Instead, we need to do outreach with like-minded groups (both within Wikimedia and in the wider communities of education and free culture), bring them onboard and reap the benefits. While knowing what needs to be done is only the first step towards doing it, it is still a step. We need people who can actually do these things. We have all the armchair strategists we need already :D &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 16:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "we need more people writing content"...so that in effect means you need more people to find the site. The most popular way is Google. Wikibooks has some great content btw the Chess book it's not bad at all. Yet the Chess shows up on the first page while the wikibooks version shows up(for me) on the 23 page. Chess is going to get thousands of visits a day from Google while Chess possibly isn't going to get any. SunCreator (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Google indexes individual pages constantly based on whether Google algorithm considers it's important or not. The scope is large; a page can be updated on Google in minutes or never. Google likes to see lots of things, here are 3 important ones:
 * pages that have a lot of incoming links to them
 * pages that are updated often
 * pages that load quickly.
 * Wikipedia has all those three elements while wikibooks has none. SunCreator (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you actually have proof of that? &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 20:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It is more or less described in Search engine optimization and is SOP for many Webmasters (there are firms built on this logic). It depends on the quality of the prof you are after. IIRC google released some info on the real algorithm they use but not the complete thing... --Panic (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I know something about SEO because anti-spam is my main area of involvement on Meta. I was actually referring to the assertion that Wikibooks has "none of these". For example, it's simply not true that Wikibooks loads slower than Wikipedia, since the cluster is load-balanced to avoid exactly that. For the other two points mentioned: that may be true, but artificially increasing incoming links or how often content changes are likely to be more of a hindrance than a help. Our goal should be to improve the project (which will have the result of increasing Google rankings). It would be a terrible idea to seek to increase our Google rank (which is supposed to have the result of improving the project - questionable at best). I assume that's not what's meant, which is why I asked (not clearly enough) for an explanation. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 20:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You maybe right that Wikibook is as fast as Wikipedia, so I take that back. Just done some testing which produced similiar results - was pleasantly surprised by speed of wikibooks!(has something changed to make it faster?)
 * I cannot prove that speed matters to Google. My own expereince with a large website showed it did, but as they say that wasn't statistically significant. It's not helped because Google(Matt Cutts) said it didn't matter, then Google said in effect that it did(by saying if it matters to users it matters to them, and publishing information that shows it significantly matters to users(!)). So does speed matter to Google? No one but perhaps Google insiders know for sure. SunCreator (talk) 00:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Guys 'n Gals, I was elsewhere in the web recently and came across a thing called The Robots Exclusion Protocol. This protocol allows a webmaster to exclude spider caching, (yes, this is the right expression!), as well as preventing its following of links on a page. It was interesting since I am fairly ignorant on such things. A site that discusses the exact coding used is at Robots Exclusion Protocol.

A page that I had written recently was noted not to be listed by google, and an incoming link was disregarded by spidering too. In fact, the What links here page did not acknowledge it either. It was no surprise to find the following META tag on the unlisted Wikibooks page:  <meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow" />  This tag has the effect of having robots ignore indexing the page and not indexing along its outgoing links.

Always bearing in mind the rather high minded and arrogant answer to my original question, do you suppose that this above fact might be relevant? Regards to all the good guys, Armchair (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * External links have nofollow attached to them, presumably to discourage people from using wikimedia projects to increase there google rankings. Pages in the User: namespace use the meta tag with noindex,nofollow presumably to keep results focused on a project's main contents. Recent versions of mediawiki introduced the __NOINDEX__ magic word so other pages could be prevented from being indexed. Perhaps the page in question is in the user namespace, or makes use of the new magic word? The magic word could be contained in some template you use as well. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Checking the Japanese book, I was surprised to find that it had the robots meta tag. I checked all the included templates and none of them have that tag. The Related wikibooks section lists a few books, none of which have that tag. --Swift (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems this is a problem with FlaggedRevs. Once pages have been sighted, only the stable versions get noindex. This shouldn't cause us problems with indexing since spiders crawl anonymously and anonymous users get served stable versions. Try logging out and check the page source again. --Swift (talk) 16:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a quick note on the replies to the original question: I, for one, didn't take the same impression away from the reply. While there may be problems with some books not being indexed as they should (see my comment with the same timestamp, above) the fact that books I've contributed to have never risen terribly high in Google's ranking never struck me as that odd. It takes time and my experience with own content on the web is that Google does a pretty good job at rewarding quality (though region specific results are a pain in the ass). I would have, too, recommended that you concentrate on content, figuring that the MediaWiki guys and our WB techies were on the ball. --Swift (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, The main point I think is that many pages, the ones that carry these offending metatags, will never attain a listing by search engines as long as the metatags are in place. This fact will remain a fact regardless of the quality of the page or the time that passes.

Who controls the use of the Robots Exclusion Protocol metatag on Wikibooks pages and what are the conditions for their use? I note that the reason that comparable pages in Wikipedia have good listings - not necessarily good pages - is that they do not suffer from this imposition.

Many, I suspect, will not make the effort of producing pages for Wikibooks because of such 'poor exposure' for their work. The project needs to attract writers. The more visitors that the project has, the more writers that will likely spring from them. Judging by the web figures, Wikibooks needs all of the exposure that it can get - not less.

I have the distinct impression that these comments about the blocking of spidering would rather not be heard by some. Perhaps this is because it flies in the face of the much-preached rhetoric on open systems; or perhaps some administrators have denied that such blocking takes place too often to feel entirely comfortable.

Let me put it this way; if this is an open system, Wikipedia is a more open system, and for this and other reasons is likely to always attract the help that it needs. Armchair (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the main point is that you haven't pointed out a single page which presents the robots metatag to anonymous users. I've just checked a number of pages (Garageband Quick Tutorial, Coping with male pattern baldness, G.E.D. Curriculum, Immunology - Transplants, Puppy Linux/Getting, Puppy Linux, FHSST Physics Electricity:Power calculations, Introduction of PLE, Social Ballroom/Introduction, Social Ballroom, Manx/Contents, Manx and the Main Page) and not one has the tag. --Swift (talk) 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution of Operating Systems Designs
Has a module from the Evolution of Operating Systems Designs book been accidentally torn out and lost, and a module from some completely different book been crammed into its place? What can we do to restore the information that was intended to be in this book? What should we do about this module that doesn't seem to belong in this book? Details: Talk:Evolution of Operating Systems Designs. --DavidCary (talk) 05:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just took a look. I don't see anything to suggest pages were ripped out or content was lost. Doing some checking of the history of each page suggests that the book was abandoned long ago. What few edits there are mostly date from 2005 and there hasn't been many changes since than. My conclusion is that the book just needs people to adopt it so it can move forward. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I took a look at it and there were some obvious errors and a lot of omissions such as starting their history with unix, and starting a history of the CP derivatives with CP/M which was a CP clone written for mini-computers, deriving Mac OSX from Mac OS9, and so on. I can see why he thinks that the book is interfered with, the modules are all smushed together, and the information on two languages that have been used for operating systems is completely missing while the first language is essentially just quoting a table of contents from another book. Frankly it doesn't look too promising a start. Maybe the original author got run off for "Varifiability"--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 00:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Since Darklama didn't seem to see what I am seeing, let me point out what I saw:
 * The current table of contents at Evolution of Operating Systems Designs includes these 3 links:
 * Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/Languages as Operating Systems
 * Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/Languages as Operating Systems
 * Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/Languages as Operating Systems
 * However, when I click on any of those links, I discover that that module has neither a "Java" section, nor a "Lisp" section, nor a "Smalltalk" section.
 * This "suggests" to me that perhaps those sections once existed there, but since then those sections have been "ripped out or content was lost". (The only other alternative explanation is that those links were created as redlinks, and the referred-to sections never really existed).
 * The text of the Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/Languages as Operating Systems module (at the time I posted my question above) never mentions "Operating systems" or "Lisp" or "Smalltalk", and so that text doesn't seem to belong in the Evolution of Operating Systems Designs book.
 * That "suggests" to me that perhaps that text -- text that doesn't seem to belong anywhere in the Evolution of Operating Systems Designs book -- was really intended to go in some other book, and somehow that text was "ripped out" of that other book and crammed into this book.
 * Graeme E. Smith later added some good content (Thanks, Graeme!) that seems to belong at Evolution of Operating Systems Designs/Languages as Operating Systems, and I want to keep that there. But what should I do with the rest of the page -- is there a more appropriate book for that information? Or should I delete it? --DavidCary (talk) 03:54, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the alternative explanation is what happened. Someone created section links with the intent to create those sections, but never got around to creating them. I wasn't trying to suggest or imply that I don't see how it could appear that content was ripped out, only that after taking a closer look for myself that I don't see anything conclusive to support that theory. To me the book looks like someone had some ideas, but never got around to finishing what they started. If you think changes should be made, be bold and do so. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The page in question, might have been meant as a memnonic or might have been copied in by mistake. I think part of the problem was that the original author was not familiar with wiki language and thought he needed # entries to link to sub-pages. In actual fact you need to use headers. I was confused when I first looked at the subpage links because I expected them to be modules, instead they are subheadings within the page. The first page had them as well, but they didn't link well, I changed that to make them more useable. I think it might be a good idea to delete the bottom part of the page, if only because it really doesn't fit the theme of the page I hesitated to do it myself, until I got some agreement from the community that it was an appropriate action. I'm a little gun-shy right now, because of the rejection I got on my own book.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 05:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Not being familiar with the wiki language is another possible explanation of what happened too. Feel free to be bold in updating the book. You don't need to seek community feedback for every little thing before taking action. Don't let the rejection of OR make you hesitate to contribute. You are far more likely to learn and understand Wikibooks if you are bold anyways. Wikibookians are usually quick to provide feedback and constructive criticism if they see something that could be improved or if something is inappropriate, without even needing to ask for it. Wikibookians usually try to be helpful and informative, but some of us might also come off as a bit harsh and intolerant at times even if that is not our intent. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Datamining Your Intuition
I have just started a book Datamining Your Intuition, and have laid out a proposed collection based on a book I have been writing with a similar title. I would like people to look at it, and tell me whether it fits the venue here, and give me an idea of how willing people would be to help me turn the bald wikilanguage into something more presentable. Since the book has never been published before there is no competing copyright interest. However it does have some original elements to it since it is based on my Artificial Consciousness Research. If it does fit here, some recommendations on where it would fit in the bookshelves might be useful.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 22:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Have you published your researches or do they have any verifiable background?
 * If so I don't see any major problem or if you just add the background information but don't put your original research on Wikibooks until it is published, Wikibooks isn't the place to advance new concepts or ideas...
 * Do read What is Wikibooks and if you don't agree you can bring your proposals for change into the unstable branch. --Panic (talk) 03:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

How Verifiable do you need to be for a How-To book? I have been building a site on WV for a while now, on Artificial Consciousness for the background to Artificial Consciousness, and I am building a Portal Portal GreySmith Institute for guiding the research for my own particular brand of Artificial Consciousness, and it is a massive undertaking. But there are aspects to my work that I haven't published yet, if only because they are a twist on the usual interpretation and I don't know where to publish, or how to afford to publish, in the case of the two other books in this series I have written, "How Memory Might Work" and "How Mind Might Work" but which I am not putting on this site because they are definitely proprietary. I put this book here, because it is the least proprietary, it depends only lightly on my personal interpretation, but if the community thinks it is too radical for you, or placed here too early in the publishing cycle, I will understand.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Completely verifiable; just like all wikibooks :-) Research needs to have been adequately peer reviewed. Anything from professional journals is fine, but Wikiversity is out. Sorry if we're too main-stream for you. If you wish to move already contributed pages to Wikiversity, you should be able to have them transwikied to save you some work. --Swift (talk) 16:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, Completely verifiable, and how many journal articles did the Paint.net book require? I am not writing my research here, I am writing a how-to book. It's not that you guys are too mainstream, No you have been brainwashed by run-away credentialism so that if someone even hints at originality you have to squash them. Why would I want to publish it on Wikiversity, it's a book, not a course! There is nothing in What is Wikibooks that even hints that it is verbotten. Excuse me if I think that you guys don't know the difference between a How-to book, and an omnibus, otherwise you would know that you need different standards for different markets. This book may be aimed at geniuses, and savants, but it not meant to be a scholarly book, just an informal set of hints to make your time more productive if you are a genius or a savant. If you are afraid of a little originality then that is a reason why people are abandoning this project. Creativity and Originality go hand in hand.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know of anyone whose been brainwashed or thinks credentials matter. Credentials can also be considered unverifiable. Wikibooks has its own standards. Books hosted by Wikibooks are intended to be education and useful for teaching, learning from and studying from. Books need to be correct in order to accomplish Wikibooks' goals. Wikibooks doesn't require that books prove their verifiability in the same ways as Wikipedia does. You don't have to cite sources for every sentence said like Wikipedia does or include a reference section on every page like Wikipedia does. Wikibooks only asks that books include a bibliography-like page/appendix with references to other material that can be considered reliable so that other people can verify what is written for themselves. Wikibooks recognizes that books have different audiences (see Reading Levels for instance) and what references are used should reflect the audience. Did you miss the WB:OR section of WB:WIW, specifically point 2? I believe that is what Swift is referring to with regard to research. A book for geniuses and savants needs to have references that geniuses and savants can use to verify the book's material. Without some way to verify what is written, we have no way of knowing whether its true or if people are making things up as they go. I could be creative and say the sky is red, the grass is purple and 1+1 is 3, but that doesn't make it true. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  01:47, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah... So even for how-to books, you expect a bibliography, well that is a completely different thing, than "Completely Verifiable" which is what swift actually said. After seeing what a hash that has made of Wikipedia, I have no interest in line by line verification, and in the area that I work in, there are few enough sources that I would be hard pressed to find so many references. I can do that appendix page easily, but it won't be up to some rarified academic standard. The original parts are in the interpretation not in the data on which it is based. I still think that it is a bit of an overkill for a How-to book, but I can accept that someone might want to know where I get my data from, and the printer will love it, since it will expand the size of the book. It might take some time, since I don't live for bibliographic information, and I want to build the wordlist first, but it can be done. Is there anything else that I have missed that is critical for acceptance, or is that the main point? Swift didn't have to invite me to leave, in order to make THAT point. On the other hand, this WB:OR while it says it is not a place for original research does not say that there is no room for orignality. Lets be clear here, a How-to book is not a Research Paper! Nor is it usually considered fiction or literature per se. I don't think I am being a wiki-lawyer to point that out! I think that swift is wikilawyering me, because I admit to some originality in my interpretation of the data.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 06:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A bibliography would aid to make the book completely verifiable. The bibliography doesn't have to be anything fancy and there isn't any academic standard that you must follow in doing so. At the minimum just the names of some published books and/or some links to some reliable websites on the subject would suffice. I don't think anyone is saying that a book is a research paper, just that Wikibooks cannot host books based on information presented in a research paper that has not been previously published and peer reviewed. You asked if the book you were writing would fit here and mentioned that the book is based on your Artificial Consciousness research. You also mentioned in response to Panic2k4 that aspects of your work have not been published yet. What conclusion is someone suppose to draw from that? Sounds to me like the book is based on research that has not been published yet, so the book isn't going to be verifiable. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  08:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

What I am hearing, is that you have no tolerance for original work at all. I don't think that has always been the case, since you don't seem to have stopped some projects that were unique in the past, but because I have mentioned research, I am held to this artificial standard that others are not held to. Like I have said, the facts in my book will be generally verifiable, what is different is the interpretation that I put to those facts, and THAT is based on my Artificial Consciousness Research, because the facts take on a new flavor when seen through that lens. I chose this book because I didn't make any really startling changes to the basic understanding of how the brain works in it. The original flavor of it should not have been an issue, that you have chosen to make it an issue, I think says a lot about your predjudices as a group. Now I don't know what the past political history is between you and WikiVersity, although in some odd corners they seem to say that they were ejected from your group, but I am not trying to rely on my wikiversity membership or anything I just mentioned it in passing. Some of you have helped with the Wikiversity project, your signatures are known, so what exactly is the problem?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't Swift, me or anyone else here. The original flavor is an issue here because the Wikibooks community considers it enough of an issue to have a policy against it. This discussion would be different if this was happening on Wikiversity, I might even tell you to go for it, because original research, including original interpretations are fine there. However Wikibooks isn't Wikiversity. Even new interpretations of established facts based on new research needs to be peer reviewed first to be appropriate for Wikibooks. Each community is different, people who contribute to more than one project need to understand the norms and expectations of each community. I hope you can see how this has nothing to do with us, but with the nature of the Wikibooks project and the Wikibooks community. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  17:34, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I gotta say that I am disappointed in the community here. It doesn't mean that I am not going to come up with another project eventually, or edit out the obvious mistakes in other books, but I think you are making arbitrary distinctions between different forms of originality and I resent that.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 18:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The distinctions aren't arbitrary. Primary research isn't what wikibooks is for.  That doesn't mean we have closed minds, or that we don't appreciate how frustrating it can be when you have something that's awkward to fit into the available categories; but just because we sympathize and have open minds doesn't make wikibooks the right place for everything.  Some of us do primary research, too, but we don't do it here.  Would you resent a hammer because it's the wrong tool for spinning thread?  --Pi zero (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Trigonometric limits
Hi, I'm A new user,I'm a fresh maths.teacher ,i need someone to help me to find the rules of trigonometric limits online to help me students.

and forgive me if my languge is bad ,that's becuase inglish my second language.

thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 2009 Azoozy (talk • contribs) 05:17, 26 April (UTC)


 * Well, first of all you might want to browse the math subject page or search for keywords. I'm not quite sure what you mean by trigonometric limits. There is a page in Calculus on limits and Trigonometry might also be of interest. Are you perhaps looking for trigonometric substitution?
 * Finally, you might also want to check out http://www.wikibooks.org for our international portal. Chances are there is a Wikibooks in your morther tounge(s). Since your students are lacking this information, please consider contributing to their native language Wikibooks. Happy editing. --Swift (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Removing old naming convention redirects
There are currently a number of redirects in the Fedora And Red Hat System Administration book up for speedy deletion. The pages are redirects from the old colon naming convention and were moved in 2006. While I see no need to delete these, I did delete a bunch of such links from a book I was working on, but rationalised that with the major restructuring that we were undertaking. That and the fact that these pages were moved over a long time ago &mdash; which is also the case here.

The problem is that links should generally not be broken so I think a good argument should be made for why a book would benefit from the removal of such redirects. Rather than just do what I feel is best, I wanted to get some more community input.

There are serveral ways we could go, including:
 * keep all;
 * delete all;
 * soft redirects to encourage users to update their bookmarks/links;
 * soft redirects which will eventually be deleted (give them a year or so?); and
 * require discussion at WB:VFD, or a demonstrated discussion and consensus amongst book contributors.

Any thoughts? --Swift (talk) 18:21, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've no problem with delete all, even ignoring talk and user space broken links, if not recent (2 moths old links shouldn't be an issue).
 * Soft redirects in my opinion are a waste of time and effort even if they are indeed more informative they also require manual maintenance.
 * I don't see keeping old redirects in general as a good outcome, even the ones you like to keep to particular subjects so they can point out particular relevant books (but I also don't put the deletion of redirects as a top priority unless directly requested), the most problematic issues of keeping redirects is that it prevents "movement" of pages and further complicates the edit history logs (like if one needs to talk with the page creator)... --Panic (talk) 19:52, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Help:Redirect, Help:Redirects and at least Help:Redirect/Page 2 seems to need a cleanup... --Panic (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * If old, then delete them all. Sure it's not a huge deal, but I think it makes a "mess" that isn't particularly helpful. <font color="#E66C2C">Unusual? Quite <font color="#306754">TalkQu 20:12, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts...
 * Redirects from the old naming convention are specifically recognized by the speedy-deletion policy under SD9; that addition to the policy was discussed here. I found that interesting reading (though I imagine it would look pretty familiar to Swift).  Other kinds of redirects are to be judged, within the existing policy, by SD10.  I've looked for other discussions on redirects, but only found scatter &mdash; User:Aya opining back in 2005 that "Redirects are generally a 'bad thing (tm)' on Wikibooks", and some non-guideline advice with a rather different tone at Help:Redirect/Page 2.
 * My preference has been, historically, to tag redirects for speedy-delete fairly promptly after moves &mdash; about as soon as I'm sure the page won't get moved back again &mdash; so as not to forget to clean them up, on the theory that redirects clutter the namespace of the book, making it harder to keep track of the actual content (especially, harder to check for pages that aren't linked from the TOC).
 * Concerning manual maintenance of soft redirects: I much prefer soft redirects for those situations where I (at least for the moment) don't want to delete a page altogether.  On a not-unrelated note, isn't there a template for automatically activating code on a fixed future date &mdash; and could it be used to preschedule a page to be speedy deleted later?  Pi zero (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the archive link! I'd forgotten about this. It might make sense to clarify the issues in the deletion policy. --Swift (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Collections (see before you get it into print)
I'm a bit confused. I thought I understood how collections are supposed to be set up, but when I try to get a PDF off of my Special Collections Page, it ignores all the modules, and when I try to get a pdf of each page, it insists on putting a heavy title bar with my page name on it, at the top of every pdf. How do you see what you are printing before you buy the book?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Obviously there is some meta-data that does not get displayed in the Collections pages that needs to be there for content to be printed as a pdf. Further the PDF converter seems somewhat limited in what it can do. However I managed to get rid of the clunky page titles eventually, and get the modules to print in order so I could see how they converted. I think that either this interface is too clunky, or the documentation is glossing over the critical detail that you need to add each page using the Add Wiki Page button, you can't just write it into the collection using edit. An interesting effect is how chapter headings just disappear once you add a module, and how some disappear even if you haven't added a module, seemingly at the whim of the converter. For instance I keep trying to put in a chapter header on CC-By-SA 3.0 and it keeps disappearing in my PDF file. I'm also not sure how you add pdf content, and the way it converts long Titles is quite annoying.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Help creating separate bookshelves for "Business and economics"
Currently "Business and economics" is a single bookshelf, whereas "Business" and "Economics" are independent subjects deserving their own shelves. Is there a savvy user interested in taking up the cause? MP (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Using Subject:Business and Subject:Economics would be better. The Business and Economics bookshelf should become obsolete in the future. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  23:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)