Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2009/December

Some questions to help with Wikimedia Strategy.
Hi, good people of Wikibooks.

I've come over from strategy.wikimedia.org. We're interested to know two things about how you work here on Wikibooks.

First, do you have any competitions? On en:wp there are quite a few different competitions that seem to help motivate editors to do good work and more of it.

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CUP

More can be found at:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Editor_awards_and_rewards#Contests

Does Wikibooks run anything like that?

Also on en:wp there are a number of WikiProjects which help editors to bond as smaller communities within the larger one.

Here's an example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history

More can be found at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WIKIPROJECT

Can you point to any sort of sub-communities within Wikibooks which help editors bond as a smaller group within the project as a whole? I guess you may have sub communities based on specific books. Perhaps you have communities that centre on specific subjects too (eg history)?

Answers to these questions will be valuable to us as we work on Wikimedia Strategy. I will be grateful for any information you can provide. --Bodnotbod (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * You are correct that individual books do have sub-communities, even to the point that site-wide community participation is lacking. The closest I can come to pointing to a community larger than a single book that focuses on a subject would be the Wikiproject Chess, which works on the Chess, Chess Opening Theory, Chess Strategy and Arimaa books and the subpages of Puzzles/Chess problems.  Nearly all of the other Wikiprojects created in the past are inactive.


 * There are no formal competitions, though contributors may work towards becoming a featured book. With English Wikibooks the 82nd largest project by size, the community isn't that large in the first place.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you Adrignola. I would like to ask you, and anyone else looking in, some follow up questions... how "healthy" would you say the community is here at Wikibooks? Are good editors staying? When good editors leave does it tend to be because of identifiable, ongoing issues that you would like resolved? I see that you have a good policy in place for welcoming newbies (WB:BITE)... would you say that this policy is working in practice? Do you have any other comments about community feeling at Wikibooks? --Bodnotbod (talk) 16:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd say we have the sniffles. For the most part good editors stay, but they are generally attracted here by one particular book (sometimes more).  Once the book (or chapter) a contributor comes here to work on nearly is done, the contributions drop off pretty sharply.  IMO, the hardest part about writing a book is finishing it.  The last bits are inevitably the hardest or the least fun, and that's why they are saved for last.  For the most part the community here is free from acrimony.


 * I can tell you that I once attempted to attract a very highly qualified editor here to work on the Digital Signal Processing book, but failed. He had been an editor on Wikipedia and became embroiled in all kinds of controversy that did not end well.  I tried to explain that it wasn't like that here, but he was unwilling to risk it a second time.  This is anecdotal, but the conclusion I draw from it is that hostility on other projects does not stay confined to its origin.  --Jomegat (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Jomegat hits the nail on the head. Wikibooks is probably the most difficult of all the projects to try to build overall community because of the issues mentioned above with lines being drawn between contibutors working on different books.  You can create a book's root page and then all the subpages of it are linked with that book; you can have your own style of writing and formatting, isolated to that specific book.  This leads to a heavy sense of ownership, with people considering a particular book "theirs" and potentially getting frustrated when others make edits contrary to the goals they had for the book they started.  If, as Jomegat says, an editor doesn't have the will to finish a book, it may never get finished, as new editors, lacking the same vision for the book as the initial contributor, choose to start a new, related book on the same topic instead.  I wish more people would come over from Wikipedia, given how much less of an emphasis there is here on bureaucratic processes that are a necessity there due to size. -- Adrignola talk contribs 22:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Adrignola: at Wikibooks it is hard to have someone continuing the work started by other authors, mainly because when writing a book it is important ot keep the style and point of view which was chosen. This usually is a very difficult task to accomplish. Helder22:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Did we have competitions? What is this?  School?  What Wikibooks and the other Wikimedia projects need is proper organization.  Too many things are decided by teenaged administrators who have let power go to their heads.  Intellectuals and experts from specific disciplines are ignored in Wikiland.  It's also becoming like the American court system where nothing is ever achieved because of endless 'policies', 'guidelines' and other crap created ages ago by people who are often not even present anymore.  Wikipedia claims to be run by its editors but having 'policies' goes against this - only administrators and editors with too much time on their hands bother to vote so everyone else is ignored.  Of course having a full "democracy" would be a shit idea too (look at Switzerland and the kind of things that happen if you let anyone have their say).  Wikibooks is dying just like Wikipedia - it is just more apparent here because it was never in a very healthy condition anyway.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:35, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Xania, you say Wikibooks needs proper organization... What could be changed to improve the organization of Wikibooks? --Bodnotbod (talk) 11:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Short video clips in a book
This has undoubtedly been hashed out at some point, but I am unaware of the solution.

Some things can't be properly shown in a picture. I wondered about the policy of embedding short video clips into a book. Or would the preference be to store those at Google or YouTube and embed a video view link.

Vorblesnak (talk) 16:38, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as you can upload PDFs or images, you can upload videos as well. They will have to be in OGG format, however.  If you are making them available under a free license, I'd suggest uploading them to Commons instead (they could be moved there regardless of whether you put them there or not if they have a compatible license so you may as well get uploads linked directly to your name instead of indirectly).  See Extension:OggHandler.  Please put a license on them regardless.  Images you uploaded recently will be deleted if you don't put a proper license on them. -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Telescope Making as a general subheading under science
The book Telescope Making continues to grow. I have finally gotten some others to contribute small pieces and with the help of Dave Cortesi I hope to entice more contributions. The suggestion has already been made to break the book up into smaller sections and as we finish it I think that would be good. This begs the question, should the title actually be a subheading under Sci/Tech titles and re-title the book? I am thinking of the general google search for Telescope Making. It makes sense to me that such a search would deliver a link to a section in Wikibooks, not just one book. Vorblesnak (talk) 16:57, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The book needs to be broken up such that there are subpages with content all under the book's name. They would be like chapters of a book.  You should not create separate books out of it.  People would see the book's main page via Google and then be able to click links to subpages from that main page.  See Using Wikibooks/How To Structure A Wikibook.  -- Adrignola talk contribs 04:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

ebooks
what about sharing and uploading of ebooks on wiki ? many people have prewritten books in pdf or word format that he might have obtained from somewhere or else written himself with hard work and right-protected it so that it could not be edited. isn't it possible to directly upload the books on wiki and regulate their existence on wiki based upon their relevance of contents and stuff written that could be checked on by some regulating authority....or administrators etc.

Er.RohitKashyap@gmail.com


 * That isn't the objective of the project. See What is Wikibooks?, you are free to propose changes to that policy... --Panic (talk) 18:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if the author(s) and publisher (if self published then just the author or authors) release it into the creative commons license or publish it via the creative commons license then they can give permission to put the eBook in Wiki format on Wikibooks and have an optional PDF download. I cannot see adding an eBook PDF file without Wiki content as well. Commercial eBooks that don't have a creative commons license like the "X for Dummies" series would not qualify. Not unless Wiley Publishing and the Authors release the books into public domain or a creative commons license and give permission to do so. Orion Blastar (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On the subject of ebooks, is it possible to download any of these ebooks? I do not see a download link. Jaqian (talk) 10:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * On books that have it set up, there will be a box that looks like Template:PDF version on the contents page. That version includes all the pages in one PDF.  Alternatively, you can click the "Download as PDF" link that appears in the "print/export" box at the left under the navigational links when viewing a book to get an electronic version of just the page you were looking at.  If the book's only one page long, you're all set; otherwise you'd have to download the other pages as well.  Hence, it's best if a book's editors create the PDF for readers. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Cookbook:Policy/Recipe template
Changes had been made to the above page (see diff) by MetricCook. As can be inferred by this user's name, they would like all recipes to use metric primarily and have metric/imperial second, regardless of how the recipe was originally created. Changes to the above page and Cookbook:San Francisco Sourdough Bread have reflected this. I bring this up primarily because this is a change to a policy page that the community should be made aware of and agree upon. Personally, I also find it counter-intuitive that a recipe for bread made in a city of the United States had changes made to make its units primarily metric, despite the US using English/Imperial units. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:51, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A few years ago I was facing the same dilemma. I didn't really like the solutions that we came up with then, but there were two of them.  Maybe someone else can think of a better way now, but I'll describe what was done.  I came up with Template:units which takes two arguments.  The first is displayed next to an image of a calculator.  Hoevering over the calculator displays the second argument.  I generally put metric units in the first arg and imperial in the second.  The result is like this: .  It does not do automatic conversions, because I don't like the way that would imply additional precision that doesn't really exist.  The second approach was a bit of javascript that User:Whiteknight had put together.  This had the potential to be a lot better, but IMO, it had one fatal flaw.  The solution was a template (name escapes me) into which one would place a unit of measure.  Then if the user added some javascript to his user space, a button would appear and allow the user to select the system of measurement.  To me, I thought the fatal flaw in this was that it would require the user to add stuff to the monobook.js for this to become an option.  Ideally, the user should be able to select a measurement system in his user prefs, and then the system should auto-convert all units created with some template.  The template should have three arguments: measurement (i.e., a number), units (such as meters), and precision (for conversion rounding).  The precision arg could be optional.  I have no idea how something like this could be implemented, but it would then allow people to have their cake and eat it too.  Perhaps this is a feature we should request? --Jomegat (talk) 17:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah - I know WP has a "convert" template which is similar to what I'm talking about, but I like it even less. It will display the secondary units in parenthesis, which I think clutters the page.  --Jomegat (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information. It's something I'll have to contemplate on.  For the record, I do with the US had converted to metric; then we wouldn't be faced with this predicament in the first place. -- Adrignola talk contribs 15:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are not alone in that wish. BTW, I fixed the units template above.  Duh. --Jomegat (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if there was a way to simply toggle the units used by clicking (similar to the show/hide coding). Probably wouldn't work unless the ingredients and measurements were always kept in some sort of table. -- SB_Johnny  talk 13:12, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fantastic. Sooner the USA stops using ancient imperial measurements the better.  Sure, the UK still often uses these measurements but anyone below the age of 40 was brought up using only metric units.  Does this mean that I no longer need to convert strange 'cup' measurements into grammes and mililitres?   Measuring food in cups was the strangest thing I'd heard of when I started editing cookbook recipes created by American editors - I have 10 cups in my kitchen of 4 completely different sizes ffs.--ЗAНИA [[Image:Flag_of_Italy.svg|15px]]talk 22:29, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You'd still have to convert the units with Jomegat's template. And even if we used metric, you'd have to deal with our use of the spellings "grams" and "milliliters".  Those in the US would encounter the same bewilderment at a recipe using only mL, especially for dry units.  Common items at stores include a cup set with 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 cup sizes nested in each other and nested teaspoon/tablespoon spoon sets.  Some liquid measurement cups have both units but I happen to have one that has cups on one side and ounces on the other.  Without both units, non-mathematically-inclined people in the US won't be able to easily make the recipe at all, if that's an issue. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:35, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

An edit to the talk page of Cookbook:Equivalencies (linked from the main cookbook page) brings up a good point. Which definition of cup are we using? According to Wikipedia's entry on cup, there are six types. I think most recipes are using the US customary cup. This means that even if two people are familiar with the term "cup" in cooking, they may be using entirely different cups. This also could pose a problem in either adding metric units or converting entirely to metric units in recipes, as we don't know which definition of cup was used to make the recipe. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Bureaucrat and Check User Nomination
Adrignola has been nominated for Bureaucrat and Check User. Please visit WB:RFP and weigh in on this matter of vital importance to the Wikibooks project. --Jomegat (talk) 16:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

How do i delete my Wikibooks account?
how do i delete my Wikibooks account? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsk1234567 (discuss • contribs)
 * You had not made any contributions and do not have a user or a talk page, so until you posted here you had no presence on the wiki. Nobody here has access to the database tables to remove the entry for your account. -- Adrignola talk contribs 18:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocking policy
For better or worse I've decided to draft a proposed policy on user blocks based off an import from Wikipedia that has been cut down and tailored to Wikibooks. Feel free to discuss on its talk page and improve upon the draft. -- Adrignola talk contribs 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Writing book
Hello. I am currently writing my first book tho i am 12 years old. For some advice i am wondering whether i should start small and write a picture book or a chapter because the book i am writing is a chapter.


 * Remember to login and sign you posts. Only you can decide what and how you can contribute. Have you looked at Wikijunior ? --Panic (talk) 07:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

New Comer with a question.
I've used Wikipedia for years, and have been doing so more frequently. I became interested in the parent organization and through that became acquainted with the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation. It's underlying ideals thus thoroughly snared my interest. I being an avid book-reader and a high school student, naturally migrated here. Where I am commencing studies on building and understanding computer hardware.

And so my question:

Is there a way to flag areas in books necessitating further research? I am perfectly willing to do that research myself, but as I don't have all that much time, I thought it would be more effective to at least note those areas first, for my and other's gain.

Thanks, Isimbot (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)


 * You can use the template or just the talk pages. --Panic (talk) 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikijunior:Shapes
Hello all! Does anyone have any examples of obtuse, acute, isosceles, equilateral or scalene triangles in real life I can use on those pages in Wikijunior:Shapes? Thanks Empire3131 (talk) 08:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * There are several photos of pyramids at the commons, so that would take care of isosceles. --Jomegat (talk) 14:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * File:Railroad crane 51.jpg This rail crane might be a good obtuse triangle. --Jomegat (talk) 14:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jomegat. I can't use the pyramids since I'm useing those for pyramid.Empire3131 (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * How about this bridge then: File:Severinsbrücke-Köln.JPG. --Jomegat (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * And for the acute triangle, you might like these: File:SailingCanoe.jpg and File:PB028820.JPG. --Jomegat (talk) 19:46, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

New Office Project
I want to make a project and the same I want to implement in my office,

My title is - Problem of Late Coming – at the office - Should the company start its own office transport for the staff?


 * Hello. Wikibooks is for textbooks. If you think your idea is a textbook - although it sounds initially more like a piece of original research or a discussion topic - then go right ahead and start working on it. There's some links at the top of the page to help you create your first book. Try using the Sandbox first to get the hang of Wikitext. Good luck. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 11:59, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Use a broader title to escape the sense of original research. Something on the lines of "Introduction to Office Management" and then cover that subject under a "Human resources" section, you can mine Wikipedia for lots of content, look on requesting transwikis, remember that you should aim for NPOV so be sure to provide some statistics if possible and mention any downsides, one that comes to my mind is catastrophic failure, you will be placing most eggs in a single basket, there are situations that will benefit from letting some people out of it or limit it to a percentage of the work force, even seasonal reasons to have different setups... --Panic (talk) 17:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no authors?
Why isn't the author's real name attached to the sections of the textbook that they have contributed? Anonymity, while viable for the interchange of pure information, isn't viable for an area that hinges completely upon authority like the textbook. The lack of an author leads to a lack of authority, and the lack of authority leads to a lack of culpability for poor quality, lack of depth, stylistic concerns, and misinformation. If indeed your mission is to create viable, dynamic textbooks that reflect the current sum of human knowledge on a subject, it cannot be anonymous and it cannot be open to everyone; in the realm of knowledge on a topic, everyone isn't even remotely equal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by C70707 (discuss • contribs)


 * Please remember to sign your posts.
 * Authorship needs to be claimed by the authors, as a mid term solution and needed for the management of contributions, each page has an history log (with understood and known limitation to the info it provides). Historically, on Wikibooks there has been some resistance to the express listing of authors on the works. I was even told that a proposal to have those pages removed was put forward by a Wikibookian that was member of Wikimedia decission making processes at the time. As you say the information is important (even of extreme importance for instance on relicensing the works) but not expressly necessary and can often be problematic, more so because Wikimedia hasn't completely defined several issues concerning copyright (probably on purpose). Regarding this issue we also have to consider that contributions and copyright status of the works are completely different for each Wikimedia's project (depending on how we see aggregation of works), the closest one to Wikibooks would probably be Wikisource. In any case fell free to look on the Ownership and its talk page. --Panic (talk) 06:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * For scientist and authors of real-world books there are many things on Wikibooks that are difficult to understand. Some can be understood historically: Wikibooks grew out of Wikipedia and on Wikipedia the authority is provided by the cited references, not by the contributors to an article; thus, the identity of the contributors is less important than for books. I'm using my real name here and in the beginning I found it very strange that almost no one else is doing this. My best advice is: you should understand that Wikibooks is not for actually writing books but for learning how to write books. That doesn't mean that you cannot write good books on Wikibooks but that's not what it's primarily used for. Some people are probably going to strongly disagree. My advice to those people is to spend their energy and time on writing books instead of discussing Wikibooks. --Martin Kraus (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Using the real name is only required for legal, economical and personal reasons. Most copyright laws support the concept of anonymous authors. Any work that doesn't provide information on the author is automatically considered the work of an anonymous author. In the case of Wikibooks (and Wikimedia) the issue is on the definition of published work and publisher. In any case Wikimedia has logs of the contributors so to them (and for legal requirements) they aren't that anonymous. --Panic (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not aware of any textbook by an anonymous author outside of Wikibooks. Are you? --Martin Kraus (talk) 08:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes there are many works by anonymous authors. As for recent works I don't know any, but this probably relates to how intellectual property has been monetized in recent times (see Go Ask Alice, 1971).  Reasons for publishing anonymously are limited and some have alternatives, from ghost writing to different pen names.  There are alternative options to satisfy most needs.  Most anonymous works are works from unknown sources or that the source has been lost over time (The Epic of Gilgamesh, Beowulf, etc.)
 * There is some limitations in being an anonymous author, this was understood in the problem with public domain works in the field of software, that lead to the creation of stronger licenses and the almost disappearance of PD. Only the copyright owner can protect the work and make sure the licenses are respected... --Panic (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I wasn't clear enough: I was referring to textbooks. Neither of the examples you mentioned would qualify as a textbook in the modern sense, would it? --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It depends on your interpretation of textbook and the time-line you see as relevant.  As an example and as a way of looking into it more in detail you have to consider that textbooks (in the sens of books with the purpose of teaching) in the form they have today is a very recent evolution.  Most texts before education was formalized were adapted to the needs, the most common and available material would be the religious texts, like the bible or other texts an educated minatory wrote.  Until the printing press (1440) was developed I doubt specific teaching materials existed or at least in meaningful numbers, in the West (China had an established system of "education" (221 and 206 BCE) ). An most anonymous authors would have reasons to not claim authorship.  I'm not specifically informed on the subject but recently I was examining some information and came across the entry of Cato the Elder (234 BC, Tusculum–149 BC) one of the writing attributed to him is a history of Rome from which Cato taught his son to read (consider the medium available to write at the time).  In recent times I doubt that any such works have been created, probably some minor material was created in schools and Universities...  --Panic (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I've also taken a look into Textbook and it is very weak article (it doesn't even mention Wikibooks, I will try to add something) the talk page has more useful information that the article page itself. --Panic (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd contend that knowledge of the author's real identity provides no substantial comfort around the authority of a book. Everyone knew David Irving was the author of his work (for example), it was cited in other books and reliance was placed on it. This didn't make it reliable. If you want guarantees around quality, etc., then you need to look at peer reviewed material. In my view this is actually what textbooks are. The authority in a textbook tpically comes from the publisher not the author(s) - you rely on the SMP maths books because you trust the publisher to have checked the material. After all even if you have the name of the author they are to all intents and purposes anonymous - you have no idea if they are any good (or not). Maybe this isn't true with particularly welll known authors, but the authors of text books aren't that well known. With the use of the FlaggedRevs extension we have at least one tool to provide a peer review of the material and to make Wikibooks reliable as a publisher of the work of anonymous authors. This is a pipe dream with the current size of the community but we can all dream. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * It goes both sides but I will general agree with you on technical books of very general subjects. On specific subject you go with author and in technical matters citations are a good indicator of at least recognized value.
 * As for the FlaggedRevs I still prefer the previous method and I strongly disagree to your vision that the community is using as as a tool for peer reviewing or to give the work a particular quality to the content above what was possible before it was implemented. Most users of FlaggedRevs are contributors to the works they are reviewing and for what I see rarely go outside to review other works. I did that for a bit and found it caused issues, because book-communities are using the tool to get a greater editorial control that wasn't possible otherwise.  --Panic (talk) 12:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I use the base level of page review only to indicate a page is vandalism free, not to peer-review it, which I know differs from some other users' methodology. I consider the highest level of review, accessible only to reviewers (rather than editors) and administrators to be the level at which it receives peer-reviewed status.  This viewpoint stems from Flagged Revisions where it states "Sighted means that an article has been looked at and does not contain vandalism. Quality means that a real content check has been done."  Considering that the option to patrol pages was removed for sighting an article, attributing the base level in this way is the only approach that doesn't take tools away from those countering vandalism.  Base sighting removes the exclamation point next to pages in recent changes that formerly represented unpatrolled status and removes the yellow background at Special:NewPages.  If this isn't what people intended by having Flagged Revisions implemented, then they should call for its removal. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry (Panic) guess I wasn't clear. I meant FlaggedRevs provides a tool that could be used for peer reviewing. I don't believe it is being used for that particularly well if at all. I agree with the meta definitions and your interpretation Adrignola. I have only ever applied the Quality level revision to works that had previously been community reviewed (pre FlaggedRevs introduction) as being of Featured quality which I interpreted to mean it had been peer reviewed as being of good quality. When I work through subjects I could peer review - like chemistry and physics texts - I may flag them higher than just sighted. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 14:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, I also like Adrignola interpretation but I've abstained myself of even reviewing at the lowest setting because it makes subsequent edits to those pages (if not timely reviewed) invisible to the common user (the unregistered reader), it is even more problematic if there was a review of a greater level than one can provide, since the last review even if on a small edit would reduce the "quality" status of a page content. Ultimately FlaggedRevs that works well against vandalism is not that useful for Wikibooks and it creates yet another obstacle to the sporadic contributor that to me has been one of the major reason for the reduction of new users into the project and a high level of frustration on the sporadic contribution and has been having an high impact on readers (the silent majority) as it delays "publication" of content, the old sporadic spell checker is but an old memory... --Panic (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Panic, it does sound like a possibility in theory, but in fact we only have 16% of the pages in the main namespace sighted at even the most basic level (Special:ValidationStatistics). We've been poor at really implementing it like the German Wikibooks, which made a real effort to sight all the pages after implementation. The effect is minimal at this point. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * As a completely separate observation, these percentages aren't "correct". For example,the main namespace is shown as having 45,788 pages with 7,453 reviewed giving the 16% figure.In comparison Special:Statistics gives Special:Statistics as the total. Presumably the ValidationStatistics figure is (for example) including redirects. So we're doing slightly better than the percentage suggests, maybe! Unusual? Quite TalkQu 12:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The page says that it excludes redirects. However, it would seem that it may be lying, as it's hard to account for the difference otherwise. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have been poor at implementing it (that was the point I was attempting to pass along), there is no real benefit to review pages and there is a great downside. Leading me and probably others to actively make an effort not to review pages outside of the works they contribute to.
 * I thought that the systems had the benefit of preventing vandalism (since it has been reduced more or less from the time the review system was adopted) but if it is as you say (I don't have a real concept of the numbers of reviewed pages here) then it doesn't even have that going for it.
 * As for the case for the keeping FlaggedRevs or restoring the old system, it was my understanding and I expressed my approval based on that, that the FlaggedRevs would be tried during a period of time and then the community would decide if it should be kept or not (the existing thread was moved, the discussion wasn't all one the single thread, the proposal were people expressed their opinions. Now the only mention for the test period is in one of the comments). This is important for determine the starting point for the next community discussion, since it would mean a requirement to gather the consensus for a keep (not for the take down). I'm not exceptionally against the new system if it was tweaked to serve our specific purposes (Darklama had some good ideas put forward as a way to really permit the evaluation of a pages quality as a sum of all reviews not only the last one), but as it is, it is only useful for projects such as Wikipedia or Wiktionary, not for Wikibooks.  --Panic (talk) 01:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Question on Solving Functions in C#
have a question on programming on solving fuctions using console in c sharp —Preceding unsigned comment added by sammathews (discuss • contribs)


 * Hello there, I see you also asked this question on a page you created in the C# book. I've deleted that (it's the wrong place for the question) and moved it here: Talk:The Complete Programming FAQ which is a better place for it. Having said that, we typically don't answer these kind of questions here. The purpose of Wikibooks is to create textbooks and, it's questions about creating the books themselves that are discussed here rather than answering questions about the content. However, there are a number of C, C++ and possibly C# experts working here who might be able to help but I think you'd be better off finding a forum to ask your question (like this one). By the way, you can sign your name by typing ~ . Thanks. QU TalkQu 12:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Lord of the Flies
Any ideas on why the book Lord of the Flies‎ is such a magnet for vandals? Are the edits coming from the same IP range? Would a rename or having the book split into chapters help ? --Panic (talk) 22:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My theory is that those trying to find a way out of the required reading for school probably also do not have any concerns about leaving graffiti on the wiki. To them it's like leaving their mark on the bathroom wall. -- Adrignola talk contribs 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Seem to come from all over the place. The page has been semi-protected a couple of times in the past. I've just given it temporary semi-protection for six months. --Swift (talk) 00:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Help on understanding the Wikibooks review process
I get this message at the top of my watched pages screen:

''There are currently pending edits to reviewed pages on your watchlist. Your attention is needed!''

This relates to a page A-level_Applied_Science/Finding_out_about_substances/Colorimetry which I edited to remove vandalism, but I am not sure what I am supposed to do next as the page seems to be marked as "under review" already. Does removing obvious vandalism create an obligation to review the page I have changed?

Can anyone give me some hints or is there a page that describes the review process on Wikibooks? Recent Runes (talk) 14:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Pages about page review: Help:Revision review, Using Wikibooks/Reviewing Pages.


 * That page is "under review" in the sense that there exists a sighted version but the most recent version isn't sighted (it's a "draft"). By default, unregistered users see the most recent sighted version of such a page, rather than the most recent draft.  So unregistered users won't have seen the vandalized version of the page.


 * In theory, if a sighted page is edited by a non-editor (that is, someone without the editor bit), and then an editor undoes that edit, the restored version is automatically sighted. In practice, I've noticed that's only what happens if, after clicking the undo button, the next button you click is "save page"; if instead you click on "show preview" or "show changes", then when you finally save, the undone version won't be automatically sighted.


 * Since it wasn't automatically sighted, you can manually sight it, making that message go away. Go to the page.  At the top of the page there's a needs-review box; click where it says "2 changes need review" in that box, which takes you to a diff page with a review box at the top.  Assuming that you do approve the change shown by the diff, click the "submit" button in the review box. --Pi zero (talk) 18:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I do know that if a non-editor makes a change to a page and you roll it back to a previously sighted version, you won't have to sight the page again. -- Adrignola talk contribs 20:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice. I guess I must have used "show preview" on the page. Adrignola has sighted this page now, so I'll try your suggestions next time. Recent Runes (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guilty of sometimes removing a page from my watchlist to make the notice go away. If I have cleaned off some obvious vandalism from a page that was sighted, it gets re-sighted automatically.  If someone adds content to the page that I am not qualified to review (i.e, add some Mandarin to a book about learning Mandarin), I will not sight it, because I just don't know if the edit was good or not.  But those notices are bothersome, so I simply unwatch at that point.  --Jomegat (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

deference beetwen jobsatisfaction& motivation
deference between job satisfaction& motivation —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarannum (discuss • contribs)


 * Hello, is this a question or a suggestion for a book, or something else? If you could clarify your meaning somebody could be able to help. Thanks. QU TalkQu 16:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Personalper.js
I've left a comment at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Personalper.js. Helder16:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)