Wikibooks:Reading room/Archives/2009/June

writing from right to left
How I can write from right to left in wikibook?


 * You may not be able to. Writing from right to left in a system that is left-to-right oriented is not easy to program, I think you would need a parser extension to do it. The problem is that wiki-langauge does not have substrings. You might be able to get the same effect by Using a right justification and writing everything backwards, but frankly that seems a bit ridiculus. Am I wrong about it being difficult?--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 05:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * gnorw ruoY
 * To write from right to left use the attribute dir="rtl" on any block xhtml element such as div. The only reason what I wrote is backwards is because English is a left to right language. For languages that are naturally written from right to left it wouldn't actually be considered backwards. --dark lama  11:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well color me surprised div is a block xhtml statement but you still have to put it into a system typing from left to right, if you are writing on a standard browser. So you still have to write it backwards...;) Oh, and does our PDF converter understand block xhtml? I tried to format a page using Div statements and my font sizes disappeared in the pdf. Same thing happened when I tried to size a picture, the size disappeared.--Graeme E. Smith (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some "standard" browsers are quiet capable of typing from right to left as well. I think the PDF converter ignores a lot of things. You could try filling a bug report to get those bugs fixed. Although the PDF converter could be ignoring those things on purpose, so as to comply with the publish company's requirements. --dark lama  12:10, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Can't silence tag error message with display:none style
I am running into a problem with the cite extension. The

However, the following markup results in a visible error:

Since the second example works on my local mediawiki installation (i.e., the error does not appear), there appears to be a configuration issue on Wikibooks that causes the error message leakage. If so, to whom should I report this? Dnessett (talk) 16:18, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should report it here, which you've done. I'll go change the relevant mediawiki message now. --dark lama  17:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I've fixed it so using without won't report any error now, so there is no need to use "display:none;" now or use any other sort of work around. --dark lama  17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. I'll probably keep the display:none sections, since I am working on a template that may be useful on other mediawiki installations. I have not completed unit testing, but if you want a preview, see Bref template examples. Dnessett (talk) 17:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well if your looking for a solution that will work on all projects, don't use "display:none". The simplest solution is to include  in the template. --dark  lama  17:32, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that won't work. The template is designed to allow references to tagged data on pages other than those where the data appears. It does this using citation lists, which are pages containing tagged data. Citation lists are transcluded silently on pages that reference citations. Silence is imposed by the display:none style attribute. Using  would eliminate the error message on the template page, but not on the pages where the template is used. For a more complete explanation, see User:Dnessett/Template/Bref/doc. Dnessett (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Generating a .pdf of a whole book?
Hi. I'm wondering if there is a way to generate a .pdf with the entire content of a book. Using the "generate .pdf" tool on the left menu, you only get the current page, so if the chapters are in subpages, you don't get them. :/ Is there a way around that? -Brutulf (talk) 23:03, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is, but it's a little bit of a manual process (though not that bad, and the output is really pretty good). If you look in the side panel on the left, you should see a section called "Create a book" with two links in it.  Navigate to the first chapter of the book you want a pdf of, and then click the link that says "Add wiki page."  Then go to the next chapter and click it again.  Repeat until you have added every module in the book you want.  Finally, click on "Show collection page.  From there you can rearrange, delete, etc.  When you're satisfied with your collection, save it, and then generate a pdf from that. If you have more questions, visit Help:Collections, or ask again here. --Jomegat (talk) 23:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll try that. -Brutulf (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations on starting a new book!
This is a continuation of an archived discussion. See the archival trail of the discussion at:. In summary, I questioned the practice of labelling a book "Congratulations on starting a new book!" for all users to see, not just the creator. The replies convince me as to the usefulness of this function, but I suggest rephrasing the text to genericise it. For example:
 * This is the new book !
 * To all readers: Keep this template for at least 2 weeks to advertise the book. Do not remove this template until the book has been properly categorized.
 * To the author: Please properly categorize your book using . Read The Wikibooks Writer for more information about starting books. Ask questions in the Reading Room.
 * For categorization help see WB:AS for ideas and WB:CHAT for assistance.

--Irrevenant (talk) 05:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The notice isn't for just readers or just the author, this is a wiki anyone can help to categorize the book. --dark lama  10:02, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

*.swf files
Hi all. For the Wings 3D User Manual I would want to add some *.swf files with instructions, that are easy to follow even by newbies. These flash files are created with Wink, look a little bit like a video, but in essence are some carefully choosen screenshots with the added value of text explanations/bubbles, navigation buttons and the video impression achived by animating the cursor movement. Here a selfmade sample of what I plan to do (be sure to have read the following, before you click ... you have to trust me and the Wink author and the vendor of the Flash player).

One problem with *.swf is, that it may contain ActionScript, a derivative of ECMA aka JavaScript and thus may be a security risk principally. On the other hand, the needed player runs in sort of a "sandbox" and can by default only write to a very limited area on the users file system (it's cookies somewhere). But then again, even that limited feature is known to be exploited, e.g. by YouTube to keep record of the users sound volume settings (regardless of the domain, where the video is played) ... and who knows, what else is possible with just that limited access?

Other problems:


 * *.swf is NOT accepted by Commons, because it is a proprietary format (though widespread)
 * Wink is free, but is not Open Source

Nevertheless I think, such tutorial sequences would help the Wings3D book a lot. Wings3D itself IS Open Source and my tut's will be licensed under the GFDL (the above one/link IS GFDL, though not noted in the file itself).

Any hint/suggestion is very welcome -- Deerwood (talk) 03:18, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Like Wikimedia Commons, Wikibooks only supports uploading free formats. So no .swf files can't be uploaded and Wikibooks has no control over that. --dark lama  03:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Darklama for your quick answer. I spent several hours tonight to find a working converter from *.swf to *.svg for the Wink output without success so far, search phrase 'convert swf to svg', from the most prominent links then: the one free online service isn't alive any more and 'Flash Exploit' seems to be unable to do that. Illustrator might be able to do it, but is ruled out because it's not free at all (and I don't have it). If onyone has another hint for a converter or some other way (including some scripting solution) to produce *.svg I would like to hear about it. -- Deerwood (talk) 03:56, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

bookshelves
how do i get a book on a bookshelf (Unlingv&auml;)--Finaloffer (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The quick answer is you don't any more. The longer answer is you should make sure books are categorized and cataloged instead. --<font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why shouldn't bookshelves be edited as long as they are linked from the Main Page? --Martin Kraus (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * With bookshelves, each bookshelf must be edited. With subject pages, editing the book is all that is required in most cases. Some bookshelves have already been turned into redirects to subject pages. More are likely to follow as more books currently listed on bookshelves are listed on subject pages. By following the new system and not editing bookshelves, bookshelves can be more quickly phased out or replaced. The links on the main page will likely be updated once people can use subjects to find all the books they use to be able to find on bookshelves. The less people use the bookshelves to list new books the sooner they can be phased out or replaced IMO. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  11:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. My opinion is: as long as a page is linked from the main page, it should be kept up to date. Well, thinking about it: any page that is not marked obsolete should be kept up to date. --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think keeping the page updated is helpful at this point. I could go mark all the bookshelves as obsolete. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:12, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should first change the links on the main page. Any page linked from the main page cannot reasonably considered obsolete, can it? --Martin Kraus (talk) 12:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The friendly answer is: some bookshelves are protected; thus, you must log in to edit them (I'm not sure, you might even have to be an editor for some). Which book do you want to include in which bookshelf? --Martin Kraus (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The even friendlier answer is: I just added it. (Previously I didn't see that you had specified the book.) --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:25, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ETD Guide
Hi!

I am writing with regard to ETD Guide The Guide for Electronic Theses and Dissertations http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ETD_Guide

This falls under the aegis of the Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations, NDLTD, www.ndltd.org. One version of the Guide was developed with NDLTD and UNESCO financial support. Some of the students working with me revised this and put it into Wikibooks. I serve as Executive Director for NDLTD.

Now I see that there is a post that we don't conform to Wikibooks' naming policy.

Can someone explain that?

I've created an account etdfox0714 My email is fox@vt.edu

Edfox0714 (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Ed Fox, 9 June 2009
 * The naming convention (which has been superceded by the Naming Policy) states that book titles should be spelled out rather than abbreviated. I'm guessing that's the issue.  The Naming Policy is silent on this matter, so IMO, you can do what you want with that post.  --Jomegat (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Subject pages.
Since bookshelves are being depricated, it has lead me to wonder if there is a nice way to make to make the development stages appear on the subject page. Does anyone know of one? Thenub314 (talk) 11:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't think of any. In the past there has been discussion on whether or not the development stages even make sense because books can continue to be developed indefinitely. The "development stages" aren't really stages of development either, there signs of progress towards completion. 0% complete, 25% complete, 50% complete and 100% complete. When I think of "development stages" I think of a development life cycle, which goes something like: drafting/outlining, expanding, refining, correcting, and repeat by rewriting. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the plan to also deprecate putting the development stage next to the books title on what ever page we list books on? All your comments about what a development stage are are interesting. I just find it handy to know how complete the authors feel the book is when I am opening it up.  Somehow I always felt that was one of the strengths of the project.  Maybe nothing was perfect, but the books themselves often let you know how imperfect. Thenub314 (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that would be the result yes. What about featured books? Isn't that useful for knowing what the community feels is ready? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Featured books are wonderful! But almost all of the books I have read here have not been featured books. For me the development stages doesn't tell me about how great a book is, it tells me about where the book is (good or bad).  Featured books being a substitute for development stages would be rather like asking students to submit lists of classes where they received A's instead of submitting their transcript.  It is nice information, but not a substitute.

I suppose as a follow question, is it also necessary to only use automatically generated lists on the subject pages as well? Thenub314 (talk) 14:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No its not considered absolutely necessary right now, but its one of the things people wanted to help book contributors. Instead of editing X pages only the main page of the book needs to be edited. Less time spent worrying about organization is more time that book contributors can spend writing. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So one could in theory copy over the information from the book shelf page onto the subject page, leaving the automatically generated lists below, but not necessarily losing the information that is on the book shelf page. Thenub314 (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That would be inadvisable, as subject pages were designed to be dynamically generated. That would require editing subject pages themselves every time a book's status is changed.  You said yourself that you often have read books that were not featured, so whether a book is at 50% or 100% doesn't even factor into the decision to click the link or not.  If a book's author wants to indicate its progress, they can do so on the title page.  Listing every book manually on the subject pages would be no different than moving the bookshelves from the Wikibooks namespace to the Subject namespace. -- Adrignola talk contribs 16:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Sure you'd like that information before the level of clicking on the book. As an editor I seek out books on the list the need improvement, and I look down the list for things that are around 50% complete and try to help. As a reader I search for things that are further along, since I probably will not benefit if it is not at least 75% of the way. The fact of the matter is if it is not at a stage I am interested in (such as 0%) I don't click. (Not to mention a book can be 100% complete and not worthy of being featured) For example, if someone shows up and wants to read about algebra: they may either end up looking at Mathematics_bookshelf or Subject:Algebra. Which is more helpful? I would say the Mathematics bookshelf currently gives you some idea of how mature the books are, what level of reader they are for, etc. I am not trying to make argue we should keep bookshelves, just trying to get people to talk about ideas.

For example, we could create a category for each of 0 25% ... 100% and add books to that category. Also, I believe some amount of manual editing of subject pages might be necessary. I thought that wasn't a bad thing, as it was explained to me the point of moving to subjects was more psychological, to free us from the idea that books had to be on one and only one bookshelf, etc. Weren't we able to automatically generate lists for a while using categories?

Maybe I should remind myself, why are we moving from bookshelves to Subjects? And although I am just moaning at this point, why do we still call categories subjects in the links at the bottom of pages? (I am not against these things, I will just be a more effective editor if I understand.) Thenub314 (talk) 21:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Contributors can also feel a book is 100%, while still not being mature enough to benefit readers. Contributors can also feel a book is only 5%, while having enough information to benefit readers. Percentages can be misleading to both readers and contributors. To modify an old saying "Don't judge a book by its percentages". If you want to know what books need help look at Category:Wikibooks maintenance and the related categories. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  21:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To modify another saying, development stages are the worst of all possible systems until you look at what else is available. Sure the system has faults, but it just seems like we are scrapping it because we would rather not think about a method for implementing it on subject pages.  Books requiring maintenance is nice, it is great when you want to kill some spare time.  But when it comes to books I can realistically contribute content to, I am only interested in one (or possibly two) subjects.  I would like to contribute to everything, but I am not able to.  Hence, lists sorted by subject are helpful. (The same is true when one is looking for a book to read.)  The pages you point to get to be unwieldy.  Yes, some books will always be mis-categorized as to how far along they are, but maintenance tags are arguably in a worse state of affairs.  Realistically, how many books/modules that need to be expanded have a tag?  (If, after hard work, we had every module tagged appropriately the fore mentioned pages would be very difficult to sift through.) Perhaps my experience is skewed, but many books I look at have no tags at all, but still need a lot of work. Thenub314 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I kinda like the idea of having categories for completeness. Now I'm going to continue the brainstorming (read that as I'm about to propose some lunatic ideas).  Using DPL it would then be easy to sort the books by completeness in a given subject.  Actually, I've been doing this with chapters in Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book for maybe two years now, but it's a binary decision - an honor is either done, or it's not.  When a chapter is "done" I tag it with Category:Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Completed Honors, and I have a few pages that sort them by that.  For instance, Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Completed Honors Needing Work lists chapters that have instruction for teaching enough of an honor that it could be awarded, but the honor still doesn't provide instruction for meeting every optional requirement.  It would be pretty easy to create a template that transcluded a stage icon based on what category a module is in.  Maybe percentages are the wrong metric, and maybe that would be the real use of the multi-dimensional flagged-revs settings.  Not suggesting that a book's flagged-revs setting be used to sort the books, but rather that books be placed in categories along those lines.  Food for thought.  --Jomegat (talk) 22:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I must admit my ignorance and ask: What is DPL? A multidimensional measure also could work, but it would need to be in a very small dimensional space.  Thenub314 (talk) 08:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't remember what DPL stands for other than that the D is for dynamic. It's a way of listing pages (dynamic page listings?) based on the categories they belong to (or do not belong to).  Take a look at Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Completed Honors Needing Work (including the markup).  Also see Adventist Youth Honors Answer Book/Honors Not Yet Complete for an example of how to include a page that is in one category but not in another.  --Jomegat (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's a nice idea, but I have to say that it would be a true ordeal tagging every book with Category:00% or a template with a category like that in it. For additional information on this extension, see mw:Extension:DynamicPageList. (You had the right idea on the acronym.) -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Any page not in one of these categories could be listed in a different section. Not an ideal solution of course, but better than not being listed.  I concede that this idea may be unworkable. --Jomegat (talk) 13:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal/copyright Question: exclusive or non-exclusive transfer of copyright?
I have a question about the transfer of my own copyright works into Wikibooks; I looked at the FAQ and did a google search but have not seen the answer elsewhere, and request that the answer be added to the FAQ.

My question is this: when I transfer my own copyright work into Wikibooks, am I granting to the GFDL/Wikibooks an exclusive or non-exclusive right to copy (in the sense described in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrights#Transfer_and_licensing)?

I would like to transfer paragraphs/examples from other documents I have written and for which I own the copyright, while still being able to distribute these documents (possibly in large numbers or for money) without inclusion of the GFDL. If I am transferring an exclusive right (as I would to most publishers), then I believe I would have to live within the GFDL as if I had copied the material from Wikibooks. If I am granting a non-exclusive right to copy, then I can still do what I like with my pre-upload copies that I send to Wikibooks (even sell the pre-uploaded version, as long as I don't sell an exclusive right to it). With either transfer, the material I upload can be "edited mercilessly and redistributed at will", which is fine with me.

I could make this point moot by just re-creating fresh variants of the examples I would be uploading, but of course that is slower, and my time is valuable.

Thanks for any answer you can provide. Apologies in advance if this is already clearly stated somewhere and I missed it. Davew haverford (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * GFDL lets anyone profit from the work, as well as use it, modify it, etc. Its a non-exclusive right. As the copyright holder you can continue to use the work any way you want. By granting Wikibooks a license you are letting anyone else use it under the GFDL. Businesses could be less willing to pay you though if they know its available for free on Wikibooks, unless you can provide some other benefit(s). Due to a recent decision, you will also have to be willing to grant Wikibooks the right to use the work under the terms of the CC-BY-SA license, and under a combined dual licensing GFDL/CC-BY-SA model, otherwise once Wikibooks copyright model is updated the work will most likely have to be deleted, since it was not available on a wiki under the GFDL prior to November of 2008. I hope that answers your questions. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Darklama, I've been away from WikiBooks for a while and am not familiar with the CC-BY-SA license that you mention. Where can I find a description of it and how it applies? Thanks. Selden (talk) 16:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Image licensing enforcement
As I'm categorizing pages and images, I come across many images that people have put on their user pages, especially if I look through Special:UncategorizedFiles. I am wondering if as I look through images in the future, whether I should be proactive about tagging with or whether it's assumed that these user page images are licensed via other means. I've seen many unlicensed images so far as I filed them in Category:User page images. Would it be helpful or disruptive to tag all the unlicensed images people are using for their personal use on Wikibooks? -- Adrignola talk contribs 05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In the past I think some have urged that people should be able to include images of themselves on their user page and shouldn't have to use copyleft licenses. Personally I think WB:HOST applies, and I don't think unlicensed/non-free images should be hosted or ignored simply because they are used in the User namespace. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  11:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with <font color="midnightblue">d l .  It's a slippery slope that we don't want to venture down.  If we have a rule, we should enforce it.  If we do not wish to enforce it, we should not have it. --Jomegat (talk) 12:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I suspected this would be the response but due to the number of pictures that were untagged wanted to make sure I wouldn't be violating some unwritten rule. As you make clear, rules are rules and they apply to all. Now I won't feel uncomfortable tagging a few hundred images with . -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Multiple row cells?
Just out of question, can you make cells in tables that span multiple rows? if so, how?--Finaloffer (talk) 20:24, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes you can have cells that span multiple columns, multiple rows or both. '| colspan="2" | cell content', '| rowspan="2" | cell content', and '| colspan="2" rowspan="2" | cell content'. Where '2' is the number of rows or columns to span. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See Spanning for similar examples. Armchair (talk) 14:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Force Page Breaks
I recently started on a new project, Wikijunior:Summer Flowers of Northern New England. Having taken up the hobby of photographing wildflowers a couple of years ago, I was asked to put together a small pamphlet for a children's program which will take place at the end of this month. Thanks to the work I've done over on the Bloom Clock, gathering pictures and providing text for all the flowers that bloom around my stomping grounds will not be a problem. Getting it to print decently 'will be though, at least for me. I'm planning to use the MediaWiki collections feature, but right now it's breaking my tables across mutiple pages. I would really like to be able to force a page break between each table.

I hacked together a template Template:WJ Flower for this project, so any page break stuff would be easiest there. I guess. If anyone wants to pretty up my template a bit, I would certainly welcome such efforts. One thing I still want to do is use the "color" field to paint a stripe across the top of the page (table?) and along the left margin. Actually, I will need the stripe on the left margin for half, and on along the right margin for the other half. Or maybe it would be easier to do both (then I can rearrange and add extra flowers without re-justifying the margins on all subsequent pages).

Are page breaks even possible? Should I be looking at a different solution? Latex? (I don't have time for that learning curve). Import html into OpenOffice and then fiddle with it?

Any help is greatly appreciated. --Jomegat (talk) 03:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Page breaks are possible with the traditional way of printing (the link "printable version" in the "toolbox" and then you would use the functionality of your browser for printing) and the template . Collections don't support page breaks as far as I know. An alternative would be to have each table on its own wiki page, wouldn't it? LaTeX and OpenOffice would also be feasible alternatives. --Martin Kraus (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just checked: you would also have to add a "chapter" in the collection for each table in order get that page break.--Martin Kraus (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks Martin. Making each plant its own chapter did force page breaks.  Unfortunately, the output is still not what I'm looking for.  The pdf generator insists on putting the full page name at the top of each chapter.  Couple that with the WB naming policy, and you get one ugly mess.  It's also making some "chapter" cross page boundaries in awkward places and overlapping blocks of text.  I'm probably going to import this into OpenOffice and work with it that way.  Or maybe Inkscape, I dunno.  It sure would have been nice to be able to buy a hardcopy from PediaPress. --Jomegat (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand it, the hardcopies from PediaPress are produced differently (with manual corrections). The problems with page breaks can probably be solved easily by PediaPress for a hardcopy. You should contact them directly. --Martin Kraus (talk) 16:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks again Martin. I think my strategy will be to continue developing the content, and then contact them when I'm ready to print. --Jomegat (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Heya Jim. Have a look at the layout on Organic_Horticulture_in_the_Mid-Atlantic/Chenopodium_album. It's designed so that you can transclude all of the pages so that it shows the header differently (like Organic_Horticulture_in_the_Mid-Atlantic/Print_version_6.16.08-001). The template at the bottom of the page includes a directive not to print the interwiki boxes. -- SB_Johnny  talk 14:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Johnny - nice to hear from you again. I'm not getting how your example changes the headers though.  --Jomegat (talk) 16:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Heh, I'm around, just not on WV ;-). The top of the pages in that book have a separate "title" (the large centered text), so when the page is transcluded, that serves as the title rather than the actual page title. I make my pdfs by just "printing" on my own computer, but then saving as a pdf rather than putting on paper and then uploading that file. Might be a MacOS thing though, not sure.
 * As far as what the bottom template does, see the div on the first line. That forces a page break when printing. -- SB_Johnny  talk 10:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Need some (minimal) help testing
Several days ago I asked for some help on the Administrative Assistance part of the Reading room, but so far no one has stepped forward. Perhaps that was the wrong forum. So, let me try here.

I have created a helper script that removes useless back links in reference and footnote data created by the Bref template, which I also wrote. Since this template and helper script is located in my user namespace, I wish to confirm that it works in someone else's namespace as well. I am pretty sure it will, but a test will confirm it. I could create a dummy user on Wikibooks and do the test myself, but I thought that would be both a waste of Wikibooks resources and perhaps contravene the no sockpuppets policy.

Testing should take no more than 5 minutes or less. First, look at the Example 1 References and the  Example 4 References. You should see back links at the beginning of each reference. Then do one of two things. Create a personal per-book page for the examples (which should be named User: /per_book/Bref_Examples.js) and add the following to it: importScript('User:Dnessett/Template/Bref/Clean Back Links.js'). If you do not wish to create a personal per book page for the test, simply place importScript('User:Dnessett/Template/Bref/Clean Back Links.js') in your skin's javascript file (e.g., User: /monobook.js for the Monobook skin). The go to both Example 1 References and  Example 4 References. The back links should no longer appear. You can then delete the importScript('User:Dnessett/Template/Bref/Clean Back Links.js') from the page where you put it. Let me know the results. Thanks in advance. Dnessett (talk) 15:15, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Where do I ask questions about Wikibits.js?
I am running into some problems with a couple of functions in wikibits.js. Where is the proper place to ask questions about them - here or somewhere else? Dnessett (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia style link?
I recently came across Quaternion which seems to be a wikipedia style link to something else on the subject. It seems prudent to me to recommend this page for deletion, for many reasons but the simplest of which would be naming conversions. But I thought I would check and make sure I understand how things are usually done first. Thenub314 (talk) 09:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The author moved the page above to Fractals/Quaternion Fractals, so it's now part of a book. They could have created the page at the current location and created a redirect at the first location, but it's the same result. They did this so that if someone types "quaternion" in the search box to the left, they will go to Quaternion, which then directs them to the relevant page in the Fractals book. This allows the use of Wikibooks subpages, with Wikipedia ease of use in obtaining information on a subject just by typing it in the box. The only time this doesn't work is if two books cover the same topic. Then, who gets the use of the prime main-space redirect? Hopefully that clarifies what was being done. -- Adrignola talk contribs 12:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of pages similar to that were recently created and moved into the Fractals book. Given that there new some time should be given for them to develop. In general such pages would qualify for speedy deletion because they aren't textbook material. The redirects caused by the moves qualify for speedy deletion once they are orphaned. There isn't really any benefit when searching because pages in books containing a search term will be found. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:58, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * True, Darklama. To play Devil's Advocate, though, people might say they prefer having those redirects remain in order to bypass the search results page. On the other hand, I can see where other textbook authors who have similar content might take offense when their books are bypassed, when they would have shown up in the search results as well. -- Adrignola talk contribs 13:04, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Request for comments.
I had recently attempted to go about improving the Subject page for Mathematics. My idea was to set up something which looked a bit more specialized then the standard template which many of the subject pages have (No offense to WhiteKnight or anyone involved with creating this template, who have done terrific work). The layout of the mathematics bookshelf page gives a rough idea about how advanced various mathematical texts are. I thought this was an excellent idea, and wanted to do something similar with the Subject page. My idea was to set up categories which gave books based on the difficulty of the book and use these to set up automatically generated lists. A simple mock up, which is by no means meant to be complete, can be found at my sandbox  As I started this I discovered there was a feeling that this couldn't be done. In particular, Darklama and I have been deep in discussion about how feasible an idea this was. This may be read at my talk page. (The conversation starts off as a bit of an argument but gets more peaceful as time goes on.) We have seemed to reach nearing some consensus on the one category I have created so far, apart from the proper name for it.

When it became clear that I intended to create other categories Darklama felt I had gone far enough and I should involve the reading room before creating any more categories. That about gets us up to present. I would love to hear any comments that people have. Thenub314 (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks' history of using levels for the math bookshelf only extends back 3 years. What levels to use or even whether to use levels at all doesn't seem to have ever been really discussed on the talk page for the math bookshelf. However I notice some past comments on the talk page for math bookshelf where people have voiced there views that there approach would be better without generating any discussing. If there has been discussion over the past 3 years it seems to have been done elsewhere. I think Thenub313 and I have gotten stuck on how to move forward. Rather then leaving the situation as it has happened in the past I think what to do or how to organize the math books could benefit from some more community input and involvement. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I think in general organizing math books by difficulty is going to be difficult to achieve. I think this is why this approach was never adopted for other subjects. How can books be organized by difficulty in a way that isn't dependent on how a specific country rates a subject's difficulty or a person's personal opinion on how difficult learning a specific subject is? I can understand and see how doing so could be useful, but how can Wikibooks make it useful for a general audience or so it is useful for most people? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  13:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It was adopted for books on languages, using Language Learning Difficulty for English Speakers to file them in subcategories of Category:Languages by category. This was not difficult, however, as the differences and even the filing of specific books was defined by an outside party. It would be nice if there were an outside source to classify mathematical topics difficulty-wise, as one person doing it will be tainted by either personal opinion or nationality. -- Adrignola talk contribs 14:13, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That book also admits the rankings are specific to a specific institute in the US, and that many people may disagree with a language's ranking. So even the difficulty of learning a language is tainted by nationality. I think it would be a good for Wikibooks to have some consensus on using difficulty rating in general. If the Wikibooks community decides that difficulty ratings are a good idea, I think it would be good for Wikibooks to have some consensus or even a guideline on how best to categorize books by difficulty. Like is using the US standard for Languages acceptable? Would it be acceptable to use a US standard for Math books too? Should multiple standards to be used instead? Should Wikibooks come up with its own definition of difficulty levels? --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (this may be redundant because of an edit conflict, but including it anyways) Perhaps it is worth playing devil's advocate and pointing out that it is not clear this would alleviate all of Darklama's concerns. The outside party that created this list of difficulty was a US government body. It is not immediately clear to what extent their numbers reflect all native English speakers, or if this is strongly skewed toward Americans. To quote him this page represents how "a specific country rates a subject's difficulty". My question would be should we get rid of this page because it may be biased? (And should I not attempt to categorize because I may be biased?) Thenub314 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, to what extent the rankings reflect all or most native English speakers is not clear. Probably the only way to ensure clarity is to ensure that whatever approach is used for ranking difficulty levels is backed up by community consensus and a community process. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For mathematics, I would think that rather than rating by difficulty, texts should be rated by prerequisites? So Algebra should not be attempted until Arithmetic has been mastered, and Calculus should not be attempted before Algebra is.  This approach would eliminate the subjective standards.  In my experience, the thing that makes mathematics difficult is a poor foundation.  If the prerequisites are not met, it's going to be tough-going.  It might still be tough going with the prerequisites in place, but IMO, it's a lot easier once they are met.  No idea how to translate this thought into a wiki structure though. --Jomegat (talk) 16:34, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That is actually the approach I suggested to begin with. Wikibooks has for that. However that doesn't seem to be enough to satisfy what Thenub314 wants. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  17:00, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually like the idea of getting the books to state more clearly what the prerequisites are. There are a few subjects where it is not the end of the story.  Let me give a few examples of what I think issues are.  The topic of algebra at the moment has several texts at various levels of difficulty.  These books would have the same set of prerequisites, but it may be useful to explain which is geared toward a more advanced audience.


 * A second issue is that many subjects do not have clear prerequisites (notice the books here may disagree with me on this point). Examples here might include Group Theory, Topology, Formal logic, Euclidean Geometry.  Any mathematical subject that starts with the axioms and then goes forward could be thought of as facing this kind of issue.  So it would be nice to have a way to describe if a book is written for elementary school students or college students. If such a range seems absurd, I could simply point to Euclidean Geometry as a subject that has books at every level.  The Formal Logic book handles this issue by stating explicitly at the beginning it is for a college level audience and looking through the book I agree.  At the end of the the day, I would like to categorize Formal logic that way.  I should point out though that Darklama has already made the comment that this sentence is inappropriate and should be removed from the book because of cultural concerns as to what college or university means.


 * The only last comment I would make about prerequisites is that we should probably encourage people not to point to other wikibooks to say "You should know the contents of this book". On the one hand, very few math books here have matured enough to actually cover the topics they intend to.  On the other hand books also go through very drastic overhauls every once and a while, so it is not a very stable piece of information.  The abstract algebra points to Linear algebra and Algebra as things one should know before starting this book, the reader may be left wonder what exactly it is he or she should know. Because both Algebra and Linear Algebra have (for a while) been in a state that is halfway merged with other books and are not particularly readable at the moment.  (Though I am doing what I can as quickly as I can to correct this.)  Thenub314 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Difficulty levels aren't any more stable due to books being overhauled. Books can also start with Arithmetic and work up to Trigonometry or some other branch of mathematics, or touch on each major branch of mathematics. Such books might have varying degrees of difficulty. The mathematics bookshelf only tries to make a distinction between introductory books and higher education books. Consider that a higher education book could also be introductory. Difficulty levels won't tell you why a book is considered easy or hard, while prerequisites can give you some idea of why you may have difficulty understanding what a book covers and can point readers in the right direction. I think it would be far more useful to say "If you have trouble understanding or following this algebra book, try these algebra books". --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I never meant to imply difficulty levels were were stable under major overhauls, just that it seems a bad practice to use the books here to describe prerequisites. I disagree with that the book shelf simply has two categories and no further distinctions.  The subject of algebra is clearly subdivided between elementary and intermediate.  Perhaps more subtlety is the sequence that books appear in more or less follows the usual sequence of prerequisites.  Let me state more explicitly that I think mathematics texts should have clearly defined prerequisites.  I agree that the information "If you have trouble understanding this book..." is helpful, I would just like to attempt to convey this information in a clear and consistent manner.  And as I stated above, (and I will provide article references if you desire), there are not clear prerequisites for every subject.  Furthermore, with some of these subjects we have multiple books at different levels. Prerequisites themselves do not solve he problem. Thenub314 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps it would be difficult. Thankfully some of the work categorizing has been done before at the bookshelf page, and we have that to learn from. While books moved from one place to another from time to time, at no point did it seem to cause much controversy. While no one can guarantee that they are 100% neutral, this is not quite a reason not to try to make things better. I think the bookshelf page is more useful the the current subject page, regardless of nationality. And I would like to keep that from disappearing. Thenub314 (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * To me the discussion page looks like people have tried to avoid problems or controversy by avoiding discussions when people have tried to initiate discussion. I think the bookshelf might suffer from apathy rather than the organization lacking controversy. I don't think there is much that can be gleaned or learned from the way the bookshelf is organized because of the absence of discussion over its organization. Basejumper123 mention the reorganization was for easier reference, but doesn't provide any insight explaining why [ further reorganization] was done. [ the current approach] also was explained but not discussed. On the talk page High School Cataloging is suggested, on reorganizing the bookshelf someone suggests that general, advance and special be replaced by grade levels, and another person suggested that we need a dependency tree. I'm not criticizing the changes or absence or discussion, but rather pointing out that it makes it difficult to understand why the current approach is used and not some other approach. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  16:24, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not see apathy, and I find the suggestion a bit insulting. I was around in 2006 shortly after Basejumper123 categorized the books and if I hadn't liked what I saw, I would have left a comment. The posts you point to seem to be people requesting further categorization, which I think speaks to the fact that this is something users would find helpful.  Instead of apathy, what I see reflected is the a small group of editors, whose interest was not piqued by the suggestion of further categorization as a new project to take on. Thenub314 (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Strange behavior of the subject template?
Probably this is not very interesting, but here goes anyways. While attempting to categorize some pages from the list of uncategorized pages I came across Grab_a_Screen_/_Edit_Screen_Grab_-_Paint, allow me not to state my opinion of its contents. I wanted to put this under Subject:Computer software. I noticed after adding that computer software did not appear on the category list at the bottom of the page. It occurred to me that this page has a slash in its title, which may have thrown off the template. Prehaps it did not add the Computer software category because this page appears to be title "_Edit_Screen_Grab_-_Paint" and part of the book "Grab_a_Screen_" It seems that the Wikimedia software didn't parse this title in the same way because there was no redlink pointing back up to "Grab_a_Screen_" at the top of the page. After double checking WB:NP there doesn't seem to be any policy preventing someone from placing a slash in the title of a book, so I thought that this may be a minor bug in the subject template. Thenub314 (talk) 14:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the policy should say that the slash (among other things) must not be used as part of book or page name. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:16, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it is worth, you and I are in complete agreement on this subject. Thenub314 (talk) 14:19, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * FWIW I think that particular page is outside Wikibooks scope. Seems to be intended as course work since it mentions credits, and the subject is pretty narrowly defined. Perhaps Wikiversity would be a better home for it, unless there is a general computer book it could go into. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  14:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TextBox Template
In some of my work on the Linear algebra book I have come across the rather annoying problem. If anyone could explain why this happens to me I would be grateful. The template seems to respect the last line break of the last "paragraph" but no other. To explain what I mean in the two text boxes below there are two "paragraphs", the first paragraph is the same in both text boxes and all line breaks are ignored. The second paragraph on the first text box is contained all on one line, and displays correctly. In the second text box there are many line breaks but only the one that occurs between the bold words LINE and BREAK appears (At least on my browser.) Questions I have: Is it a user issue (meaning am I doing something wrong?) Is this dependent on browser? Is there a nice way to stop that line break from occurring?

I've fixed the problem with the template. The problem may seem odd, but the problem was that the closing  was on the same line. MediaWiki is suppose to suppress paragraph breaks ( ...  ) for two lines of text without any intermediate line breaks, however at the same time MediaWiki is also suppose to put paragraph breaks around the start and end of text if there is tag, while trying to predict if that is appropriate. I think there is a bug because its suppose to suppress a paragraph break if the div is on the same line which it does, but it seems to be depending on there being a line break so finds the previous line break, which it shouldn't do, and puts the paragraph break there. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  12:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In case it is of interest, there is no line break between LINE and BREAK in either of the two paragraphs on my browser (Safari 4.0, Mac OS X 1.4.11) (Perhaps because the template is fixed?). Dnessett (talk) 14:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Darklama, that does indeed fix the problem, which will speed up my processing a great deal. For anyone reading this there is no longer there is no longer a line break between Line and Break, as there shouldn't have been. :) Thenub314 (talk) 18:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Very confused while trying to upload image
I've spent bits of several days trying to figure out how to upload and make use of an image in a wikibook I'm starting (specifically, Visualizing Computation).

I have learned to use Inkscape and discovered and dealt with some obscure issues (such as why you don't want to have a non-integer canvas size), and now am just trying to install the image on the wikimedia commons and use it in on wikibooks.

I have uploaded an and tried to refer to it from the appropriate wikibooks page, but I seem to be getting the old version of the file (which has the same name, but lives on wikibooks instead of the commons).

Can someone please (a) take a look at the wikibooks page and tell me if the reference is being done in the right way, and also (b) delete the Power_log_med.svg file from wikibooks so that my reference will reach the one on wikimedia commons (telling me how to do (b) is even better, but my understanding is that this requires administrator access).

(note that I'm planning to add Visualizing Computation to the list of new books once I've got at least one good page made).

Thanks, Davew haverford (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

(Upon re-checking, I've noticed that I do seem to be getting the current version of the image, but it looks oddly pixellated on my screen; I'd still be happy to have the wikibooks version of the image deleted, and be interested in advice about how to improve the image visual quality, which as I understand it should never be poor with an SVG. Davew haverford (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC))

(p.p.s. the image looks fine on my Mac running Firefox, but pixellated on Ubuntu Linux running Firefox. This may be a platform-dependent rendering issue. I'm going to stop worrying about technology and focus on uploading good content when I get back to this on Monday. Davew haverford (talk) 01:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Doesn't look to me like there's a local image by the same name. What you see at File:Power log med.svg is the file from Commons. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 01:34, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome message
I just tried adding the template to a new users page. Unfortunately the first line of what it produced was "Welcome, !" . There is a high probability I made a mistake, but I am not sure what I did wrong. Why didn't the users name appear? Thenub314 (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you used rather then welcome. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark  lama  14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good, I have made a change over at Maintenance to reflect this. That is where saw the instructions just to use . Thenub314 (talk) 15:06, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

How to start??
I guess I'm a little lost about how to "CREATE" a "BOOK"? Under the tab "create a book" I click "add page to book" and it just adds a book to a collection. Is that how you begin a book? Maybe someone can lead me to the appropriate place on the site where I can begin creating my own Wikibook.

Thanks in advance... ~Uber Lost


 * Well, long story short, you can search for the title you want. If a book by this title doesn't already exist then it will show you a list of possible matches. Just above this list there will be a message There is no page titled .... You can create this page. You can click on the "create this page" redlink to do exactly that.  You can find this, and possibly other useful information, in the book Using Wikibooks.  Have fun! Thenub314 (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Software help
Is wikibooks a good place to software documentation such as GeoGebra Help 3.2? The application has the source code under GNU General Public License v2 but the Documentation Files are (currently and unfortunately) under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0. So, I a user of GeoGebra and a pt.wikibooks collaborator I would like to contact Markus Hohenwarter (markus at geogebra org) asking about his interest in using Wikibooks for future versions of the documentation. What do you think? Helder20:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikibooks would be a good place to write a book documenting that software program. You would have to document the program from scratch though, unless the person or persons who owns the copyright to the help docs agrees to relicense. As you might of guessed, works submitted to Wikibooks must allow commercial uses and derivatives. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  20:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Right! I will ask them about this... Some time ago Markus gave us permission to use screen shots of GeoGebra in Wikimedia projects, via OTRS (for example, this one: Geogebra.png). So, maybe they can also extend the permission for Documentation... This would be a lot better than start the book from scratch =)


 * By the way, how to delimit when such a wikibook documenting the software is a derivative work of the original documentation and when it is a new work that uses that documentation as reference? Helder21:12, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Another question: what do you think about this discussion at GeoGebra forum, related to Wikibooks? Leave a comment there too... =) Helder21:03, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In a nutshell...
 * Derivative work uses previously produced content.
 * references are used when a few snippets of content (phrases) are used in the resulting work or to give credits to the original content authors if the new work is build on ideas, concepts or discoveries made elsewhere. They are also useful to provide the reader with other related sources of content or to extend the usefulness of the book without extensible overlapping previously produced content that doesn't fall perfectly in the scope of the new book, or can't be copied verbatim. --Panic (talk) 23:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * For derived works there is no standardized way to do it exactly. A common practice is to create an authors or copyright page to list the attributions. "This book contains work written by who and is released under what". You could also add that to the talk page for each page in which you derived works from. You could also use the edit summary to include a link to the work your copying from. You could do all three for completeness and to be thorough. A bibliography-like page is often used to link to or list works used as a reference. --<span style="font: bold 10pt 'courier new', comic, sans, ms;"><font color="midnightblue">dark lama  23:26, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Template request
Hi, I would like to copy the template from wikipedia to here. I imagine this should be done in such a way as to preserve the edit history. If someone could help me with this that would be great. Thenub314 (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Imported that + dependencies. Hope it works - there may be conflicts with our templates you'll have to resolve. If you need help, ask again. &mdash; <b style="color:#309;">Mike.lifeguard</b> &#124; talk 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

'Special' bookshelf doesn't contain its contents.
From the homepage the 'Special Groups' bookshelf contains the cookbook, study guides, etc but if you click on the "Special Groups" link, none of those are available from the Special groups page itself. I don't really know enough about how Wikibooks is structured to take a punt at it myself. http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Special_groups_department --Irrevenant (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)